A Secular Somali State?

[SayidSomal]

secular (read in af-soomaali) ! and let me what you think of it - and for those of you advocating for secular somalia - what is secular in Af soomaali?

[ailamos]

Sayid*Somal;749714 wrote:

secular (read in af-soomaali) ! and let me what you think of it - and for those of you advocating for secular somalia - what is secular in Af soomaali?

cilmaaniyad

[N.O.R.F]

ailamos;749680 wrote:

Norf, please don't generalize. When you say that

"Secular societies today are in free fall with no morals/values left. Kids are disrespectful, governments unilaterally go to war, high crime etc etc."

it not only is uninformed, but bordering on ignorance. No offense, walaal.

 

The only bit I agree with in that blanketed sentence is the

"governments unilaterally go to war"

, but there are still many exceptions because secular societies are not confined to the US and certain Western European countries.

 

As to the death penalty, I'm not getting into that because that's a whole different can of worms

 

 

 

That is what we are debating about, and apparently there are arguments for both sides. I believe Muslims can live in a secular system as well as they can in a Shari'ah system, but the opposite is not true.

I'm generalising? Me? 12 pages in and, after a skim through the pages, I don't see anything but generalisations (including from yourself).

 

Let me explain. For me, secular societies mean Europe and North America (is Mexico secular? ). Popular western culture is dominated by the US. Personally, I grew up in the UK and so base my opinions of secular societies on those two nations (rightly or wrongly). In addition, I was born in the Middle East and live there today. Purely from observations, I have deduced the following:

 

1. The level of crime is much higher in western secular societies than in ME countries with a form of Shariah Law (why is that?).

2. Family values have been eroded in western secular societies but remain firm among ME societies (why is that?)

 

I’m keeping it to two points as I believe these will be very important to any future Somali state.

 

What I’m trying to do here is get you to be more specific. Considering the above (which you’re free to contest), what is the attraction of a secular state?

 

I believe Muslims can live in a secular system as well as they can in a Shari'ah system, but the opposite is not true.

.

 

Do explain.

[burahadeer]

these people really running with this sharia stuff like parrots.The whole fundamentalist thing is under question nowadays! I rather take any otha system.You can be whateva u wana be but don't impose the likes of shabab on unsuspecting masses.

Sharia stands for shabab or any otha radical group.

It's not gona come to somalis;they have already rejected.People back home r smarter!

[Nabad_dadaye]

If you want sharia,that's what Shabab stands for.I don't think anyone with his right mind can stand interference from gov't on how they live their life.

alshabab waxa eey suubinayaan yaa ku yiri waa sharia low , dhibka heysto dad badan waxey tahay waxeysan aqoon u lahaun diinta islaamka iyo sida shareecada tahay ,markaas ayey ku leyihiin waa xun tahay , tusaale waxey usoo qaadanayaan gabar eey alshabab dhagax ku dileen markaas ayey daliil waxa eey uga dhiganayaan in sharia low qaldan tahay , ma baarayaan diinta islaamka waxa eey ka qabto xadkas iyo shuruudaha loo dajiyay iyo xikmada ku jirto ,goormaase la fulin karaa yaase fulin karo , haduu qofka intaas ogaado kuma eedeyn lahayn shareecada qalad uu qof galay

.

I believe Muslims can live in a secular system as well as they can in a Shari'ah system, but the opposite is not true.

hadaanba helayno shari'ah system maxaan secular u aadeynaa , soomaaliya oo dadkeeda dhamaan uu muslim yahay (inta dhax joogta wadanka ) , ma iney gaaloobaan ayaad usheegeysaa ood inoo qurqurxineysaa ,maadaama secularism uu yahay in la diido diinta Alle lana yiraahdo kuma haboono in shacab lagu maamulo taasoo ah gaalnimo .

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

^ whither or not what the shabab are doing is sharia or not is irrelevant. they have their own understanding of sharia and are blowing up students left right and center to implement what they believe is sharia. apparently, you have have your own understanding too but what those of us advocating for secularism are saying is it doesn't matter what your interpretation is, let it be those peace loving sufis or those salafis killing muslims all over the planet, just keep it to yourself. If your actions are for the sake of God, keep it between you and him, whatever you interpret his command to him to be.

[Abu-Salman]

As ever again, too much distorted thinking and emotions are confusing the topic, which is not about personal devotion or definitions of morality (let alone Al Shabab) but the source of laws.

 

Apart from the most basic fact that a muslim, by definition, is mandated to uphold and defend the Quran & Sunnah and thus the resulting Shariah, just like jews are expected to uphold the Torah or old testament laws, the nitty grityy has been well captured by Norf:

 

 

[Let me explain. For me, secular societies mean Europe and North America (is Mexico secular?

). Popular western culture is dominated by the US. Personally, I grew up in the UK and so base my opinions of secular societies on those two nations (rightly or wrongly). In addition, I was born in the Middle East and live there today. Purely from observations, I have deduced the following:

 

1. The level of crime is much higher in western secular societies than in ME countries with a form of Shariah Law (why is that?).

2. Family values have been eroded in western secular societies but remain firm among ME societies (why is that?)

 

I’m keeping it to two points as I believe these will be very important to any future Somali state.

 

What I’m trying to do here is get you to be more specific. Considering the above (which you’re free to contest), what is the attraction of a secular state?

 

Why would, more specifically, a Somali family prefer their children to grow in Somalia under the same laws and social norms that rule or led to a Mexico City, Bangkok or Los Angeles than say a Karachi, Kuala Lumpur or a Cairo (incidentally extraordinarily safer despite overpopulation, omnipresent need and tourisms)?

[ailamos]

N.O.R.F;749777 wrote:

Let me explain. For me, secular societies mean Europe and North America (is Mexico secular?

). Popular western culture is dominated by the US. Personally, I grew up in the UK and so base my opinions of secular societies on those two nations (rightly or wrongly). In addition, I was born in the Middle East and live there today. Purely from observations, I have deduced the following:

 

1. The level of crime is much higher in western secular societies than in ME countries with a form of Shariah Law (why is that?).

2. Family values have been eroded in western secular societies but remain firm among ME societies (why is that?)

 

I’m keeping it to two points as I believe these will be very important to any future Somali state.

 

What I’m trying to do here is get you to be more specific. Considering the above (which you’re free to contest), what is the attraction of a secular state?

Specificity cannot be implied when you just take into account the UK and the UAE, and then expand those two countries into entire regions, considering there are 191(?) countries.

 

Let me counter with my own observations, that the level of crime in "western secular societies" varies because crime is virtually nonexistent in many towns and cities in countries like Portugal, New Zealand, Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland. However, when you talk about large population centers like London, Paris, Berlin or Barcelona, then that's a different matter, because where you have people living on top of one another, and particularly in areas where many are poor and marginalized (think the Bronx), then you will have crime and criminals, whether you are in Dubai or Barcelona.

 

As for family values being eroded in "secular western societies", that's purely a fallacy, or rather an opinion and not a matter of fact. I have met and lived with European families where the bond of family and the level of respect for the parents is not unlike that of my own family. Similarly, in every setting, whether it be "secular western countries" or otherwise, you will have variations in family values. For example, in this country, family values are stronger in, say Texas, than California, but then again who am I to say that, and how many families have I sampled? None. It's purely a generalization because of the fact that Texas is more conservative than California.

 

I used to travel a lot in my last job, and I realized things I had not know before and things I had assumed about "the other societies". For example, that strong family values are not restricted to just one set of people (contrary to popular belief in this forum) and that there are a multitude of humans from all walks of the cultural and religious spectra who have strong family values.

 

A bit of traveling around and completely immersing oneself in other cultures usually does the trick of eroding one's ethnocentrism

[N.O.R.F]

I will address your above post when I get ample time as I’m about to rush out.

 

In the meantime, please explain to me how a Secular Somali state is a good thing because in effect, what you’ve stated above and in previous posts doesn’t really explain your reasoning.

 

I believe Muslims can live in a secular system as well as they can in a Shari'ah system, but the opposite is not true.

[sharma-arke451]

burahadeer;749707 wrote:

If you want sharia,that's what Shabab stands for

.

war ninku(naagtu) been badnaa???

 

norf, sxb you have a point.

[ailamos]

N.O.R.F;749872 wrote:

I will address your above post when I get ample time as I’m about to rush out.

 

In the meantime, please explain to me how a Secular Somali state is a good thing because in effect, what you’ve stated above and in previous posts doesn’t really explain your reasoning.

I think what I stated above explains my reasoning very well. If not, then please be specific as to where I am being unclear.

 

As for my statement, there are several different 'forms' of Muslims e.g, some who want to give equal shares of inheritance to both their sons and daughters, some (women) who may fall in love with a non-Muslim and would like to marry him, some who may have an (alcoholic) drink occasionally, and so on. To have Shari'ah is to force everyone (whether you are a "liberal" Muslim or a "conservative" Muslim) in one pot and tell them: "look you're a Muslim and this is how you should live your life because you're obviously too incompetent to make your own decisions regarding your faith". A secular system will tell you none such, you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty.

 

I am of the opinion that no one should force their version of morality on others. People should be able to come to their own conclusions regarding faith, God and how to live their life. I personally think it is a form of weakness in faith that one should require fear of punishment in order to be a good Muslim or a decent human being for that matter. And that people who have a necessity for such rules suffer from moral poverty.

[sharma-arke451]

ailamos;749880 wrote:

I think what I stated above explains my reasoning very well. If not, then please be specific as to where I am being unclear.

 

As for my statement, there are several different 'forms' of Muslims e.g, some who want to give equal shares of inheritance to both their sons and daughters, some (women) who may fall in love with a non-Muslim and would like to marry him, some who may have an (alcoholic) drink occasionally, and so on. To have Shari'ah is to force everyone (whether you are a "liberal" Muslim or a "conservative" Muslim) in one pot and tell them: "look you're a Muslim and this is how you should live your life because you're obviously too incompetent to make your own decisions regarding your faith". A secular system will tell you none such, you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty.

 

I am of the opinion that no one should force their version of morality on others. People should be able to come to their own conclusions regarding faith, God and how to live their life. I personally think it is a form of weakness in faith that one should require fear of punishment in order to be a good Muslim or a decent human being for that matter. And that people who have a necessity for such rules suffer from moral poverty.

good enough. the word ''some'' shows exceptions, and cannot be used as a rule or majority,

 

to norf: weel walbo waxa kujiro ayaa kadaato. ailamos waxbo yuusan isku kaa qarin, waxaaa kadhax guuxaayo,

. I personally think it is a form of weakness in faith that one should require fear of punishment in order to be a good Muslim or a decent human being for that matter. And that people who have a necessity for such rules suffer from moral poverty.

and that's why he will never understand you. dee marbo meel umbu kasoo jeesan. straight umawadi karo warka

[ailamos]

sharma-arke451;749883 wrote:

dee marbo meel umbu kasoo jeesan. straight umawadi karo warka

I think I've explained my reasoning. The answers are as good as the questions that are asked.

[sharma-arke451]

in my opinion, you lack focus and sincerity. however the truth is bitter, just say it. why on the defence all the time? you can be wrong my friend, even once. you opinions are not always right, neither anyone else's his/her.

[ailamos]

sharma-arke451;749889 wrote:

in my opinion, you lack focus and sincerity. however the truth is bitter, just say it. why on the defence all the time?

These comments are neither here nor there. We're talking about the pros and cons of secular governance vs a shari'ah one, if you can't stick to the topic then we might as well drop the subject and convert this to a troll-highway...

 

you can be wrong my friend, even once. you opinions are not always right, neither anyone else's his/her.

I'm wrong a lot time, and I'll gladly admit to that and as long as this debate rages on then you'll hear more of my "wrongfulness"