A Secular Somali State?

[ailamos]

N.O.R.F;750066 wrote:

Isn’t this a case of forcing societal ills on the Somali people? Can you imagine alcohol being made available to Somalis? There are Somalis in the west today who are alcoholics or addicted to qaad (just as there are in Somalia). Many of these guys have neglected their families resulting in unruly school drop outs (meaning no jobs/income and maybe a life of crime for those youths). I mean, if that doesn’t show you these individual freedoms you’re advocating for is a recipe for a broken society, I don’t know what will.

Norf, this paragraph of yours stuck with me. I suppose what I'm getting at is, personally, I don't mind certain things being banned across the board because of their potential ills. But it makes no sense to me is when laws have no rational basis behind them and are backed up with nothing other than dogma. For example: ban alcohol, why? Because it is Haram, end of story. Women should not show their shoulders in public. Why? Because it's Haram. Men and women should not mix in public, and women should not hang out with men they are not related to. Why? Because that is Haram. So on and so forth. Those kind of responses completely incense me. So basically, I don't have an issue with a Shari'ah system per se, as long as the laws are rationally comprehensible, and irrational aspects like the testimony of woman being worth half that of man, etc. are scrapped. Sure, I welcome the "restrictions on my freedom", not everyone can do everything in any society, there are limits, but all I ask is a rational (not dogmatic) reason for that restriction. The second people give state so and so is not allowed because God said this and God said that, then it signifies the end of a rational discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[Abu-Salman]

Yours was a very partial attempt at explaining away why cities such as Cairo have such low levels of crime and countless tourists never experience even a single theft in the overpopulated city.

 

And how do we extract away religious beliefs from laws anyway?

Are not commencing law students first taught that Law originate from a given society views on morality (ie source of Law)?

 

Here is a notorious "sceptic" take on how our sense of rationality is such a limited and capricious commodity:

 

 

............................................................

 

 

 

THE OPIATES OF THE MIDDLE CLASSES

 

[NASSIM TALEB:] As a practitioner of science, I am opposed to teaching religious ideas in schools. But, it seems to me somewhat misplaced energy — more of a fight for principles than for any bottom line. As an empirical skeptic, I would like to introduce a dimension to the debates: relevance, consequence, and our ability to correct a situation — in other words the impact on our daily lives.

 

My portrait of the perfect fool of randomness is as follows: he does not believe in religion, providing entirely rational reasons for such disbelief. He opposes scientific method to superstition and blind faith. But alas, human skepticism appears to be quite domain-specific and relegated to the classroom. Somehow the skepticism of my fool undergoes a severe atrophy outside of these intellectual debates:

 

1) He believes in the stock market because he is told to do so. — automatically allocating a portion of his retirement money. And he does not realize that the manager of his mutual fund does not fare better than chance — actually a bit worse, after the (generous) fees. Nor does he realize that markets are far more random and far riskier that he is being made to believe by the high priests of the brokerage industry.

 

He disbelieves the bishops (on grounds of scientific method), but replaces him with the security analyst. He listens to the projections by security analysts and "experts"— not checking their past accuracy and track record. Had he checked them he would have discovered that these are no better than random — often worse.

 

2) He believes in the government's ability to "forecast" economic variables, oil prices, GNP growth, or inflation. Economics provide very complicated equations — but our historical track record in predicting is pitiful. It does not take long to verify these claims; simple empiricism would suffice. Yet we have confident forecasts of social security deficits by both sides (democrats and republicans) twenty and thirty years ahead! This Scandal of Prediction (which I capitalize) is far more severe than religion, simply because it determines policy making. Last time I checked no religious figure was consulted for long-term business and economic projections.

 

3) He believes in the "skills" of the chairmen of large corporations and pays them huge bonuses for their "performance". He forgets that theirs are the least observable contributions. This skills attribution is flimsy at best — there is no account of the possible role of luck in his success.

 

4) His scientific integrity makes him reject religion but he believes the economist because "economic science" has the word "science" in it.

 

5) He believes in the news media providing an accurate representation of the risks in the world. They don't. By what I call the narrative fallacy, the media distorts our mental map of the world by feeding us what can be made into a story that can be squeezed into our minds. For instance (preventable) cancer, not terrorism remains the greatest danger. The number of persons killed by hurricanes, while consequential, is dwarfed by that of the thousands of isolated daily victims dying in hospital beds. These are not story-worthy, implying; the absence of attention on the part of the press maps into disproportionately reduced resources allocated to their welfare. The difference between actual, actuarially defined risks and the perception of dangers is enormous — and, sadly, growing with the globalization and the media, and our increased vulnerability to visual stimuli.

 

Now I am not arguing that one should ignore the side effects of religion — given the accounts of past intolerance. But it was in these columns that Richard Dawkins, echoing the great Peter Medawar, recommended bright students to find something worthwhile "to be smart about". Likewise, I suggest exerting our skepticism "where it matters". Why? Because, alas, cognitively, our resource to doubt is rather limited.

 

We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives

[N.O.R.F]

ailamos;751238 wrote:

Norf, this paragraph of yours stuck with me. I suppose what I'm getting at is, personally, I don't mind certain things being banned across the board because of their potential ills. But it makes no sense to me is when laws have no rational basis behind them and are backed up with nothing other than dogma. For example: ban alcohol, why? Because it is Haram, end of story. Women should not show their shoulders in public. Why? Because it's Haram. Men and women should not mix in public, and women should not hang out with men they are not related to. Why? Because that is Haram. So on and so forth. Those kind of responses completely incense me. So basically, I don't have an issue with a Shari'ah system per se, as long as the laws are rationally comprehensible, and irrational aspects like the testimony of woman being worth half that of man, etc. are scrapped. Sure, I welcome the "restrictions on my freedom", not everyone can do everything in any society, there are limits, but all I ask is a rational (not dogmatic) reason for that restriction. The second people give state so and so is not allowed because God said this and God said that, then it signifies the end of a rational discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I was going to respond to your previous post but this one pretty much puts it all in a nutshell.

 

Saxib, as I expected, your problem isn’t really with Sharia but rather with it’s interpretations. I’m no expert and I’m not claiming to be one. However, purely from my observations, I can see areas where Sharia trumps secular and areas where Muslim countries are lacking (freedom of speech, human rights, gender issues etc).

 

I’m not sure why but you’re choosing to look at these laws from an external perspective. Any ‘rational’ Muslim should be able to recognise that what is haram is haram for a reason. Alcohol is haram for a reason (I doubt there is any dispute between Muslims on alcohol). It can and has been proven to lead to, as I stated earlier, addiction, broken families, crime and death. Notwithstanding the individual freedoms you’re advocating for, I as an individual in any society, also have rights. I have as much right (if not more) to be protected through laws that ban alcohol because of the problems it brings to society at large. I do not partake in a tipple myself but I would like streets free of drunks thus reducing the chances of an alcoholic society and being caught in a fight on a Saturday night. Reducing such decisions to an individual level will not protect others from it (protection is key in any society). People are not perfect. Muslims are not perfect. If allowed to make such decisions themselves, temptations will always be there which will inevitably lead to problems. If society protecting against such problems is interpreted as Muslims not being able to abide by the tenets of their faith then so be it. They will be grateful for it nonetheless.

 

Traditionally, when it comes to mixing of the sexes, Somalis tend to be more lenient than say the Arabs. As for exposing flesh, Somalis tend to be more conservative when it comes to attire. If you were to wear those 3 qtr length shorts that expose your calves only, you would still get stares and inevitably a scolding. If you were to wear a khamiis/dishdash stopping at your calves waxa la odhan lahaa wa wadaad. That’s just the way we are

 

All in all I don’t think there is much space between our views. You need to be convinced about why/how laws protect society. I hope I have given you a few pointers. Any Sharia laws will be adopted the Somali way. I doubt Somalia will be like the KSA.

[ElPunto]

ailamos;750908 wrote:

You're trying to say that polygamy stems out of Pagan societies? If so, then didn't Pagans have their own polytheistic religions? And did these religions not consider polygamy as the norm of their societies? It's a twisted argument when you state that "the ban on polygamy in fact based on religion" when, at the same time, it was practiced by religious (not to mention Abrahamic) communities i.e. when the law instituted by Justinian, the early Christian emperor, it banned Jews from entering into several marriages, not to mention that polygamy is taught in the Bible (e.g. David's seven wives including those of Saul). Furthermore, just a quick FYI, polygamy was not the natural social order before the religious institution as you, and other religion apologists, tend to elude to. Polygamy was prevalent and perhaps more widespread than monogamy, but to say that monogamy was first instituted by Christianity simply a fallacy. Several indigenous populations, such as certain Aztec tribes of the past and those of the Andaman islands of the present, were and are monogamous, even though they are construed as Pagan because of their Animist beliefs. Additionally, the reforms of Solon in the 6th century BC instituted monogamy as the sole legitimate family form, preceding Justinian's rule by some 1000 years, and the advent of Christianity by some 500 years.

Here I'm simply saying polygamy is not specific to religious people or religion per se. You earlier alluded that the US banned polygamy because it was the practice or habit of other religions. It is not.

 

I'm glad you acknowledge that the Islamic ban on alcohol is an infringement on one's liberties (we've been given the gift of reason, it is up to the individual Muslim to make the choice of whether to drink alcohol despite God's words). They are apples to oranges because if Person A wishes to have a polygamous marriage, 1:n, under the pretext of religious right, and Person B wishes to have alcohol under a personal right, i.e. the said person is having a drink by his/herself, they are not one and the same, are they? Furthermore polygamy is legal in secular countries such as South Africa, where it is strictly regulated as to prevent gender inequality that is prevalent in customary patriarchal societies.

Both are an infringment of one's liberties. That was the similarity that was being argued earlier. The rest here is beside the point.

 

 

We can also theorize about all sorts of things. We can theorize, if you wish, that since Shari'ah acknowledges slavery and the keeping of concubines, that it is legalized, applied, and eventually abused. And because it was prevalent in Muhammad's (SAWS) time, and he also kept slaves and concubines, then why not bring it back? Because we're talking about a system in which "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", are we not?** So due to this "consistency", theoretically speaking, slavery and concubinage cannot be rescinded.

You're putting up a straw argument here. You're the one who claimed that the secular system and its ability to change laws at will was an advantage. Instead of addressing that - you've chosen to side step.

 

First off, let's be clear, there is no assault on religion here, so there is no need to be defensive. I will be the first to say that religion has brought a lot of good to the world, however religion has also led to many injustices and crimes. I am certain that you'll be quick to dismiss that and state that "every other system has it's pros and cons", which is (and will be) a fair statement. This is not unlike one that is oft-heard in Muslim circles around the world, wherein the negative aspects of religion are quietly swept under the rug, and in most (all?) cases completely unacknowledged*, while the positive aspect are glorified and touted left and right. By this dismissal, through the comparison of the cons of other systems, you're not only ignoring the wrongs committed by religion but you are, at the same time, exasperating self-righteousness.

Not defensive - i just find it odd how some people choose to hange everything negative on religion. Why don't people talk about how athiests Stalin and Mao committed terrible crimes in imposing that sytem etc. I don't know where you arrive at my 'ignoring wrongs committed by religion'. Where it is reasonably clear that folks are misusing or abusing religon to further a moral wrong - I stand ready to condemn it. Instead of citing cases like this you seem to be simply generalizing again.

 

 

*= see earlier point. Fair enough point. Which present countries would you say are evidence of "proper Sharia" states?

 

**= see earlier point. So, you're basically saying that a decision by the highest Sharia court is irreversible since it is based on a system wherein "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", whereas decisions by the Supreme Court, contrary to your supposition, are reversible by overturning earlier precedents. Can you prove that is the case with the highest Sharia court, contrary to the notion that Islamic "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space"?

 

There are no countries that are proper Sharia states sadly. Contestability is different from reversability. If the latter is what you meant earlier - then there may be some laws that would be reversible in a Sharia/Islamic court. Those laws that society has formulated to govern itself could be subject to revision and amendment. Those laws that are the mandate of God would be different. They wouldn't be reversible or amendable. On this - I would ask - are there any laws in the United States Constitution that for practical purposes are not reversible even though technically every man made law is reversible? The answer is yes. In that sense this purported difference between the two systems is in reality and in practice a sham.

[Knight of Wisdom]

ailamos;405727 wrote:

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?

Lol @ reform their religion up to modern standards.

 

To answer your question, I think it would be best if we took a look at how the Christians have "reformed their religion to modern standards" and what the outcome was. Furthermore, I think it would be best to shine light on how "secularism" has been the cause of World War 1, 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, and etc. In the name of Secularism, has the world seen much destruction and bloodshed. All in the name of "fitting into modern standards". Many Non-Religious folks around the world, in different times have criticized religion and accused it of being the cause of human suffering. Now, looking back at what Liberalism has really done to the world, I think they'd rethink twice about their claim. haha

 

To answer you question, I could simply summon up a simple answer. In every Religion, I think the commonality is that, if the Scripture is changed or "modified", than that Religion itself is automatically abrogated and looses it's legitimacy. Islam is in every way, shape and form the most MODERN ideology on the face of the Earth.

[omar12]

Furthermore, I think it would be best to shine light on how "secularism" has been the cause of World War 1, 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, and etc.

Please explain how separation of church and state(secularism), caused hitler to invade poland, or how it caused Archduke Franz Ferdinand to be assassinated.

 

I see nothing wrong with seperation of mosque and state. I think you loose alot of people though when you start insulting their religion and saying it needs to be modernized.

[Somali philosopher]

i joined for the same reason. but i have to say i think somalia with its state religion being islam is the way to go. simply because islam is a large part of who we are. america has christianity as a state religion. they would never choose a non christian president and yet they claim freedom of religion.

[Raamsade]

Somali Philosopher, your analogy between Christianity in USA and Islam in Somalia is a false. A witless greek some 2500 years ago said analogies must compare apple with apple not compare apples and oranges. Not much of a philosopher, are you?

 

Anyways, Christianity doesn't determine or write America law secular, elected leaders do. If Sharia proponents have their way, Imams/Wadaads will write EVERY law in Somalia rendering parliament superfluous.

[GaraadMon]

I keep hearing this argument of Sharia not being properly implemented, therefore any mention of the current state ofMuslim countries is tossed aside. It reminds me of the communists who will brush off the bloody history and attribute it solely to the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot. What both groups fail to realise that the system they're fighting for transfers to power to a non selected few who in most cases are corrupt. Since corruption is a natural by product of human civilization, shouldn't we ensure that religion is safe from the state? Bureaucratizing Islam will stifle discussion and the repercussions will be felt by future generations.

[aero]

Raamsade;836985 wrote:

Christianity doesn't determine or write America law secular, elected leaders do.

You've got to be kidding me. Those so called elected leaders happen to be geared and influenced by their Christian upbringing. Are you not familiar with the history of the surrounding areas of the Bible Belt? Especially one that has tainted the history of this very land I call home. Shall I connect the dots for you or would you rather live in your rose colored glasses? The development of the worse slavery in the world was introduced, pushed and backed by European American Christians in the name of Christianity. So do please spare me for waxad dhihi rabtid.

 

Islam is the only solution for Somalia.

[GaraadMon]

You do know that many of the early settlers were unwanted puritans from Europe right? Also,why don't you compare actual secular nations like Sweden and South Korea rather than bringing up the least least secular nation in the west .Islam is already predominant in Somalia, what makes you think sharia law in a destitute nation would fix its social issues?

[aero]

Blackflash;837983 wrote:

You do know that many of the early settlers were unwanted puritans from Europe right?

So? Doesn't change the fact that that history took place in a leading country that is to be mirrored off of.

 

P.S. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery in the United States was passed in Jan 31, 1865. You and I can attest to the very fact that it was not only limited to those early settlers (who happened to arrive in the early 1600ish ).

 

Blackflash;837983 wrote:

why don't you compare actual secular nations like Sweden and South Korea rather than bringing up the least least secular nation in the west.

Perhaps if you carefully took a gander at my post before you were too quick to reply, you'd noticed that I wasn't the one who brought up the United States. I was simply replying to a member's comment. Secondly, I only speak of what I know and what I've experienced considering the fact that I am an American. So South Korea and Sweden would totally be off my radar . But I'm pretty darn sure they've had their rough patch of history as well.

 

Blackflash;837983 wrote:

Islam is already predominant in Somalia, what makes you think sharia law in a destitute nation would fix its social issues?

Islam is professed by the majority in Somalia. Professing and putting its teachings into practice are two totally different things especially when it has to come from a level of power. If Islam was the solution to a people who's social condition was similar if not worse than ours 1400+ years ago, I'm sure it is the solution for us today. One of the many ingredients missing to bringing this into play is honest and faithful leaders who want to look out for the good of Somalia as a whole rather than their tribal constituencies.

[Raamsade]

aero;837991 wrote:

Professing and putting its teachings into practice are two totally different things especially when it has to come from a level of power. If Islam was the solution to a people who's social condition was similar if not worse than ours 1400+ years ago, I'm sure it is the solution for us today. One of the many ingredients missing to bringing this into play is honest and faithful leaders who want to look out for the good of Somalia as a whole rather than their tribal constituencies.

Islam is what Muslims do! Otherwise, Islam will be no more than bunch of words on paper with no pragmatic impact in the real world. In which case the whole corpus of Islamic dogma might as well have never been written to begin with. No body cares about theoretical Islam because we can't jude it as we can't see it. Hence why Islam as practiced by Muslims is the only objective way to evaluate the merits of Islam as a solution to the world's (or Somali's) problems. And by that standard, Islam flunks in every significant category.

[genius pauper.]

Raamsade;839040 wrote:

Islam is what Muslims do! Otherwise, Islam will be no more than bunch of words on paper with no pragmatic impact in the real world. In which case the whole corpus of Islamic dogma might as well have never been written to begin with. No body cares about theoretical Islam because we can't jude it as we can't see it. Hence why Islam as practiced by Muslims is the only objective way to evaluate the merits of Islam as a solution to the world's (or Somali's) problems. And by that standard, Islam flunks in every significant category.

If an individual fails to see the essence of self respect, he/she ends up being a blind critic and an arrogant jabber. such a habit is a time bomb, and rest assured, it will reap a consequence. A bitter one, may be.

 

It is one thing to disagree with someone, and another to be abusive.

 

Discuss your concerns, question, but no disrespect to fundamental beliefs of people.

Differ with people, but with restraint and respect.

[GaraadMon]

What disrespect? I don't see anything that's even remotely disrespectful in his post .