A Secular Somali State?

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by ailamos:

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.

You're simply mistaken. Civilized means developed. The US is civilized country, Somalia is uncivilized. Anyone who has been to both countries will readily agree to this.

 

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

Although I advocate secular governance, I am against depriving religious people from practicing and abiding by the rules of their respective religions.

Me too. I'm a strong believer in letting people believe whatever will get them through the night. But there's a proviso -- your believes must not impinge on the human rights of others.

 

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

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).

It is true that Muslims migrate to economically prosperous democracies. But why not dictatorships or totalitarian countries? Is it because there aren't that many developed dictatorships? That should tell you something -- the direct and positive correlation between secular democracy and economic prosperity.

 

There is a way to test whether Muslim migrants prefer secular democracy over Sharia and that is to construct regression model that controls for economic development. For example, and using GDP as proxy for economic development, you record the choices Muslim migrants make when presented with two countries of equal development levels... a good example would be Kuwait with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $32,491 per capita and Spain with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $35,116 per capita. Now, I know Kuwait is not strictly run according to Sharia but it is deeply conservative and by defacto has many of provisions of Sharia. We know from official sources which of these two countries Muslims migrate to, risking life and limp. Nothing is stopping Muslims from getting on rickety boats and besieging the Kuwaitis until they take 'em in. I strongly believe that if one does this sort of analysis for large enough data set that one would come to the same conclusion that I have.

 

It's obvious and undeniable. Even today, very few Muslims are willing to give up their Western passports for Alshabaab one or Hamas one or Hezbollah one or Taliban one or Iranian one or Saudi one or....

 

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

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.

The Muslims who are willing to accept such compromise are not the ones we (unbelievers) have issue with, is it? I got no beef with unobtrusive Muslims who let others live their lives as they see fit. They're already reformed and secular by outlook. To the Jihadis, such Muslims are kufaar lackeys and hypocrites.

 

Your compromise is unrealistic. Islamic law clearly enjoins Muslims to wage Jihad fi sabiililaah (Jihad for the sake of Allah) to all four corners of the earth and until the whole earth becomes --in the words of Sayd Qutb -- "the dominion of God." This is an Islamic imperative that no practicing Muslim can oppose. There is no way a committed Sharia proponent would accept your compromise.

[Che -Guevara]

Originally posted by 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.

I'm not sure if that's what he's saying. My view of it is that there's natural progression of things in given society and within contours of each society, needless to say systems are borne out of experience-secularism is purely European experience.Expecting Muslims or in this case Somali Muslims to embrace it even in the context of economic and cultural prosperity is simply flawed.If anything, secularism in Somalia would be anomaly rather than it being the next evolutionary step in our capacity to govern ourselves.

 

Makes wonder though what was state of the Somali tribes in the horn when the Treaty of Westphalia which ended religious wars in Europe and essentially established sovereign states or nation states was signed?

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

You're simply mistaken. Civilized means developed. The US is civilized country, Somalia is uncivilized. Anyone who has been to both countries will readily agree to this.

I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that one because the notion of civility is culturally relative.

 

Originally posted by Raamsade:

Me too. I'm a strong believer in letting people believe whatever will get them through the night. But there's a proviso -- your believes must not impinge on the human rights of others.

Correct, no disagreement there. If a person wants to be guided with divine law then s/he has the right to follow and practice it. For example, a dying man who divides his wealth amongst his children according to Sharia, can and should be rightfully able to do so. Though I don't think it's fair, it is his choice.

 

Originally posted by Raamsade:

It is true that Muslims migrate to economically prosperous democracies. But why not dictatorships or totalitarian countries? Is it because there aren't that many developed dictatorships? That should tell you something -- the direct and positive correlation between secular democracy and economic prosperity.

The UAE, Qatar Bahrain and Oman are prosperous monarchies with large populations of Somalis. However, I think they are the exception rather than the rule and geographically closer.

 

There is a way to test whether Muslim migrants prefer secular democracy over Sharia and that is to construct regression model that controls for economic development. For example, and using GDP as proxy for economic development, you record the choices Muslim migrants make when presented with two countries of equal development levels... a good example would be Kuwait with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $32,491 per capita and Spain with GDP (at official exchange rate) of $35,116 per capita. Now, I know Kuwait is not strictly run according to Sharia but it is deeply conservative and by defacto has many of provisions of Sharia. We know from official sources which of these two countries Muslims migrate to, risking life and limp. Nothing is stopping Muslims from getting on rickety boats and besieging the Kuwaitis until they take 'em in. I strongly believe that if one does this sort of analysis for large enough data set that one would come to the same conclusion that I have.

That would certainly prove to be an interesting experiment. Get enough data and you can expand this by extrapolating and creating a surface which displays the countries that have high probabilities of receiving migrants.

 

It's obvious and undeniable. Even today, very few Muslims are willing to give up their Western passports for Alshabaab one or Hamas one or Hezbollah one or Taliban one or Iranian one or Saudi one or....

Why even bring it up? You and I both know that's not going to happen. I don't think anyone would give up a passport that provides such freedom of mobility. I certainly won't

 

Originally posted by Raamsade:

To the Jihadis, such Muslims are kufaar lackeys and hypocrites.

I think that's been proven on this forum, even though I don't think we have any Jihadis here (?)

 

Your compromise is unrealistic. Islamic law clearly enjoins Muslims to wage Jihad fi sabiililaah (Jihad for the sake of Allah) to all four corners of the earth and until the whole earth becomes --in the words of Sayd Qutb -- "the dominion of God." This is an Islamic imperative that no practicing Muslim can oppose. There is no way a committed Sharia proponent would accept your compromise.

Call me an optimist, but I don't think it's impossible.

[Jacpher]

Secularism and all that it entails is an alien and foreign concept to Somalia. More harder than ever given the religious warfare taking place in the country as we speak.

[burahadeer]

Guys,it's quite refreshing to see such a marvellous team coverage.I'm kind of busy nowadays,but will try to present some facts in

a logical & constructive manner.

In the mean time I would like to point few underpinnings.

INHERITANCE:I have two boys and four girls I love

all of them as a parent would be.When I pass away

(hopefully 70 yrs from now),their shares are in

place,in writing & by witnesses,and is equally

divided.That applies whether they live in or out

of Somalia.Will that make me non-Muslim?I'm just

trying to be fair to my daughters which I adore.

Common sense dictates.I think this inequality should be tackled,and especially by the young in

the diaspora as I assume they are more open minded.If some have a problem with the"common sense",I have few questions to ask.

First:Are a good number of muslims promiscuous,don't pray regularly or not at all,don't lie,don't drink,don't kill each other

(Somalia),etc.And I'm talking about good number ++.I THINK IT'S JUST A HUMAN TRAIT REGARDLESS OF

FAITH.

Second:Look at most Muslim leaders,there is hardly anyone his hands not get painted red.Here

few.

Saddam:Gased his own people(Kurds).

Propaganda ha make my day.

Siad:Bombed his cities & his people.

I can figure more,but ya get all.

May be time is not on our side,when it seems planting a flag on Mars is around the corner.

For hard liners,each to his own, but we'll fight

over it ,and it will never come to your fingernails.Never has so many owed so much to so

few.I intend to be the few,and save these mothers

and children who are under the yoke of these gun

trotting prima donnas.

Freedom for ever.

 

Inchoate.

[LayZie G.]

^lol

 

 

Maverickyyyyyyy, it is not that people dont comprehend Sharia, it is that they refuse to comprehend it for as long as as Sharia professes to be the supreme authority, but often falsely favours one gender over the other with no room for compromise, thereby demanding that people should accept its ruling wholeheartedly without doubts in their heart of hearts, etc, etc.

 

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are a Somali Sarah Palin, alot of talk, no substance. You can not even accept the simple historic precedent previous Islamic Empires have set for modern day events, which are reflective of these events that you accuse me of denying, the innocent blood that were shed in the name of religion after the prophet's death, 6th, 7th century.(rapid expansion) How do you think Iraq, Syria, Egypt came to adopt Islam? You think they woke up one day and decided to be Muslims?

 

You think slavery was foreign to the early Islamic Empire? You think just because they called it conquered people and the divided booty that it didn't make them slaves? You think there existed no slave revolt? How do you think the early Islamic Empire richened and were able to carry massive raids on large and far territories?? You think Arab Muslims were squeaky clean and expanded without lifting the sword once or using slaves of non-arab descent to expand their empire? You tell me? Unless of-course you think the actions of the early Muslims empires were justified and the modern christian imperialists dating as far back as 15th century not so much?

 

If you speak like a slave, think like a slave, you must be a slave. YOu are doing yourself disservice by harboring ill feelings about historical events that had nothing to do with you by looking back instead of looking forward, which is why aa fa-caa ka hartay.

 

Speaking of faithheads and economic migrants, you talk as thought north america was actively seeking faithheads of brown and black color, instead of adopting a national policy to only recruit migrants of north and western european countries, which were preferred over eastern europeans and southern europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century. These migrants, mostly workers and families were sought because they were most likely to adopt the culture practices of the period(and easily assimilate), both in Canada and the United States, this is a fact, its not fiction by far stretch of the imagination. Blacks and browns were despised, heck, the Italians and the pols were preferred before they would accept a black or brown person.

 

An argument could be made that recent patterns of closely examined group of refugees have shown difficulties with language,climate, difficulties with the surroundings but their children or the first generations that are born yearn to belong and mostly successfully assimilate, were as others in this group do confront stereotypes which forces them to draw back and seek refuge in familiar aspect of their lives, strengthen their faith due to the difficulties that arose in their journey to belong and some ultimately clinch to religion as way to make sense of this evolving society in fear of losing themselves and in part looking to belong.(small minority) and as a result become radicalized and what not because they feel empty inside.

 

Now, you do not know me and I do not know you but one thing is for sure, I know who I am, you know who you are, therefore we can not pretend to know one another, especially when it comes to matters of faith, so why dont you do yourself a favour and stop pretending to know something when you clearly have no idea, especially the religion or the history of the religion you embrace? Learn the history, markaa lee aniga iyo adiga hadleynaa, until then, clinch to faith, see how far that gets you. Remember, in life, balance is needed, too much of one thing makes one's thoughts imbalanced.

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah,

 

 

first of all, no disrespect but the 2 above posters have completly missed the point with their antics!!

 

One of you (burahadeer)through their ignorence of the Islamic religion and the reasons for the laws of the sharia is rampaging about 'inequality' of the inheritance laws between the sexes!! have ever read the quran and hadiths with regard to this matter and the reasons for its sanctioning?

 

------your percieved injustice is A CONTRADICTION to the essence of Islam, which is justice (to Allah, to oneself and to others)-----

 

(the best you could do for your childeren if you TRUELY love them and care for them is to expose your self and them to the religion of Allah and teach your self and them the book of Allah, for surely that is the greatest inheritance of all, for them and for you)

 

While the other (layzie) is running wildly with his own misinfalted ego and calling people 'faitheads' and 'Sarah Palins' to my mind this was a discussion of a subject and not a personal attack on people!!! If you can not present a coherent argument in support of your point then it renders responding to you as really pointless.

 

Lazie, your accusations with regard to my ignorence of history (is pure presumption from you) and leaves much to be desired.

 

 

It is impressive how you diverted your attention from the outragious consequences of the near recent slavery and colonialism which were SINGLE HANDEDLY caused by your the leaders of the so called 'enlightenment' 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

 

The prevalence of godless theory of evolution and social darwinism which coincided with the rise of secularsim have directly led to the mental and physical annihilation of many. many millions of people by others who felt (and many still do) to be more evolved and more man.

 

to be continued..

 

........i am in hurry but InshaAllah i shall come back.

[Sherban Shabeel]

The theory of evolution is not godless. I'm tired of this misconception coming up in debates OVER and OVER again.

[N.O.R.F]

^Let the discussion, a good one at that, continue saxib. All sides have already thrown in a banana skin or two

[ailamos]

I want to send a quick reminder LayZie G. and Mavericksky that we're all Somalis here no matter what we believe. Please don't get into personal attacks. There are a lot of you(s) and finger-pointing in your posts. If you would like to bash each others beliefs and call each other "faithheads" and "godless" then I suggest you open a new thread entitled "Between LayZie G. and Mavericksky".

 

I think the discussion is going well, I urge you to please not ruin it.

[genius pauper.]

^^^ailamos, take note that your thread is lacking any focus, for theres no any central theme it is dwelling on, irrespective of your tittle ''a secular somali state?''

you would have better tittled it '' an attack

on the underlying blocks of islam"" i guess that sounds better? isnt it?

 

ilko iyo warbo waa la cadeeyaa.

 

for such a tittle;"a secular somali state"

the points you would discuss should have been, what really secular means, its origin, its merits and what factors in somalia makes it favourable for such system of governance, what secularity entails and its building blocks, compairing secularity with other system of governance,,,,,,,,,,,,,and many other scholarly forms of deductions,

 

but just coming up with conlusions based on refuting the bases of the islamic sharia, means you are either baised,(which means your intollerant to others believing in contrary to your believes) or that you lack the knowledge to scholarly bring out course effect relation about the subject.it does not fail to capture any educative eye, the faults and loopholes in your arguement, and that it really narrates one eye perspective, which renders injustice the scale to measure events.

 

as if the thread was on what in islam are you incomfortable with, your flooding the floor with uneducative insights of the genesis of your hatred.!!!!

 

p.s islam is a religion and those who follow it are muslims, least you confuse.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

as if the thread was on what in islam are you incomfortable with, your flooding the floor with uneducative insights of the genesis of your hatred.!!!!

OK here we go, I wondered how long it would take for a comment like that to surface. genius pauper, if you feel attacked then please hit the complain button or don't even stop by this thread, no one has a gun to your head. As far as I can tell, no one is insulting Islam here as your sensitivities have insinuated.

 

Please read all the posts from the start and then bring about a reasonable response instead of wasting your time and everyone else's with nonconstructive BS.

 

PS. I suggest you bring something constructive to the table rather than b*tch and moan.

[ailamos]

[Castro]

Is it too much to ask for any state? Secular, Islamic or Jabal Jaan?

[ailamos]

^ I agree, at this point and after almost 20 years of bloodshed, any form of peace would do...