Soomaaliyeey toosoo....

[NGONGE]

It has been a while since I felt the need to write on any subject or expect my words to be received objectively. However, lately, the subject of clans and clannishness has been repeated on this forum several times and some people challenged (albeit half-heartedly) my belief that Clan Is Everything.

 

The discussion concerning Somali clans and the perceived view people have about the clan system itself is, in my opinion, well overdue. But how should one begin to tackle this vast institution and the multitude of contradictions those opposing it display? Though I am still unsure of the path I am going to take here, I believe a start of any kind is better than no start at all. So, let us begin.

 

Now, I may come across as a tad philosophical when discussing clans but I truly cannot see any other way to approach this subject, more so when the charge laid at its door is that it is bad for Somali society. This is why I begin by asking the question, why is it bad and in what way?

 

Those that argue against the clan system claim that it fosters hatred, spreads division and (for some) it is against the faith. Looking at it from a certain angle, all these charges have an element of truth in them. If my clan is at war with a neighbouring clan it is only natural that I would hate that clan (after all, they are killing my kin). If my clan is in dispute with other clans it is also natural that it would choose to distance itself from them and the consequence of that will be clear division. Finally, if my clan goes about killing, maiming and subjugating others for no reason other than its own gratification, it would also be in clear breach of the faith. Yet, none of the above has anything to do with the clan system or clannishness itself. In fact, all these charges can be equally directed at nation states, groups or even a single family. In other words, if my own brother gets killed by my next door neighbour it really is not likely that I will harbour love for that neighbour. And if my own brother kills and maims it will mean that my parents have given birth to a murderer but (surely) it does not mean that my parents are in breach of the faith or that my family should not exist. Better still, if my entire family were a bunch of infidels that kill and maim, it does not mean that we should get rid of the concept of families altogether!

 

 

In his Muqadimmah, Ibn Khaldun spoke extensively about the clan system and its importance to building a viable state. In fact, he used the term ‘casabiyah’ when speaking about the positive contributions clannism offers to society. Similarly, the prophet of Islam spoke about such casabiyah when he advised that one should supports one’s brother in both right and wrong (the hadeeth of course goes on to explain what right or wrong means but, more importantly, it acknowledges clan existence and allegiance). This also is apparent in the history of the Umayyad Khilafa where the residing Khalifa would gather the best poets in his Majlis (or throne) and ask them to recite poetry praising their own clans, disparaging other clans or comparing the histories of clans in general. The poetic battles were immense and no kind of insult was held back (see the duels between Jareer and Al Farazdaq). However, despite such blatant clannisim the Umayyad dynasty did not suffer and the state were functioning as well as it should. So, and this is to reply to the second charge against the topic of our discussion, clannisim does not destroy states!

 

Some people find the empty boasts about someone’s nasab highly vulgar and consider the idea of clan loyalty a backward trait. However, these same people are also extreme in their support for the Somali nation state and view it as something different, distinct and far removed from clannism. They would fill up with empty pride when they hear Yum-Yum’s Somali ban ahay yet miss the obvious point that this poem is no different to any that exalt certain tribes or clans. The only difference being that the clan here is Somalia rather than reer so and so or reer so and so.

 

This is where the idea of group dynamics, group belonging and group loyalty comes into play. Ibn Khaldun believed (as I am sure most of us do) that without peace and justice no group could survive. The Somali State was made of such groups (and despite the late president’s symbolic ceremony of burying clannisim) it all came down to a lack of peace and justice. The clans themselves were there before the state and, like burning embers under the dust, returned to the fore after the collapse of the state. Now many are again calling for the resurrection of the state whilst (surprisingly) insisting that clannism has no part to play in this equation. They expect people, in a land that is ravaged by war and mistrust, to wander around as individuals and trust words and sentiments rather than a clan that protects, helps and supports!

 

What is even more amazing than the contradictory nationalists are the confused Islamists. They in their part want to completely wipe the clan of the face of the earth and replace it with faith. It is not as if the prophet himself came with the message to an extremely clannish Arab society with the words “Ana Al Nabiyo La Kathib, Ana Ibnu Cabd El Mottalib”! It is not as if he told them that he was sent to complete the best of manners (I paraphrase of course). But were these the manners of the Roman Empire he was talking about or simple Bedouins of Qureesh? And how do they differ from the manners of any of the Muslim clans of today? Is generosity not encouraged, is tightfistedness not frowned upon? Is doing “good” and avoiding “evil” not included? What do the clannish poets mock each other with? Surely not looks alone? Surely they do it by referring to the other clans’ veering from the correct path (of goodness; good faith and good manners). Yet our Shababi preachers disagree. They act as if they are the first group to stumble upon the idea of Islam/Jihad and Ummah. They expect everyone to forget the past and follow them blindly into an uncertain future (but unlike the former president they don’t burry, they dig). What is even more confusing with them is that they too talk of a Somali state run along the lines of Islam. But if that is the case, why not put their guns down and work towards making the clans more Islamic (they are nation states on their own as it is)? Why bother with this whole notion of a SOMALIA? Then again, there are some amongst them that are looking at a bigger picture, one of a far reaching Islamic Ummah that begins in Mogadishu, Kabul and Baghdad and ends in the Canary Islands and Moscow. Ironically, theirs is also a clan. They too follow the same formula of boasting about their good traits and disparaging the bad traits of their enemy. They accept no outside advice and mistrust the intentions of anyone not connected to their ‘group’. They provide no peace and their justice is arbitrary and selective. But because they sing the song of Islam (like the nationalists sing the one about Somalnimo) they expect people to abandon the safety of the clan and come running to them with open arms. In fact, they believe that they have eliminated clannism in the areas they control but if they know their history, they will know such a thing could never happen. Under the ashes of Naxnu Al Shababu Lana Al Ghado, the clan sentiments still burns brightly.

 

Some people accept the existence of clans but argue that such an institution should only exist for reasons of identification. They (rightly) quote the Quranic description of clans and nations where there is an explicit explanation for clans/nations (which is recognition). But could you really have one without the other? Could one belong to a group without venerating it and believing it to be good, is there actually a point in belonging? Surely human nature dictates that one would hold one’s group (family, clan, nation) in high regard and believe that it is as good as others (if not better). This is the logical worldly view. It is one that says “know me, for I am from such and such clan and we are morally good in all we do”. I mean, when was the last time you saw clans boasting about their bad birth (zina), their expertise in thievery or their historic treachery? Was it not Qoom Loot? But the clans of Somalia today are all Muslim and follow the Islamic principles of generosity and respect (even if some amongst them would err from time to time).

 

Is the conflict in Somalia today about belonging to deep rooted clans as opposed to noxious mushrooms, or is it one about mistrust and interests? And, more importantly, is it new? Many on this site actually argue that clans cannot dominate each other. But how do they know that? Has there been a real, concerted and open attempt for one clan to dominate another? Is it not the case that most clans regressed back to their own lands, areas and historical dwellings and most of the disputes took place in unresolved areas? The only time the issue of “domination” raises its ugly head is when clans get together to form states. A case in point being the Galgala dispute (where some from the clan residing there are complaining of a Farole domination). Another is in the SSC conflict where they allege an SL plan to oppress, subjugate and dominate them. But, in the case of Galgala it is not an actual clan trying to control another but a so-called president with a dictatorial streak who is fanning the flames of division there. In not allowing the customary clan apparatus to solve this dispute for him, he stands to weaken that state, plant seeds of mistrust and repeat the mistakes of the former Republic of Somalia. The SSC case is different (and here, I speak with the blinkers fully on). In this one, SL fully understands the clan psychology and is gently approaching the problem with a “hands off” approach. SL realises that it cannot claim its own borders without having the clans residing in those areas fully, happily and consentingly accepting such a state. It also knows that such an outcome could not materialise through the power of the gun but rather through negotiation, diplomatic seduction and clan discourse. Being a “Somali” country, it recognises that without clan consent (even amongst the mischievously named triangle) there will be no State. This is seen through the occasional clan grumbles of not having their correct number of ministers in the cabinet (as happened recently in both SL and the TFG) or when looking at some of the turncoats that are questioning the state now that their preferred government is not in power any more. Lobbies and pressure groups do not exist in Somali politics, only clans do. So, for any government to survive (be it that of Somalia, the 'federal' regional State of Puntland or the recognition-seeking republic of Somaliland) the clans have to be appeased.

 

Clans are everything and will remain so until Somalis accept (understand) this fact and go about creating acceptable clan coalitions, even if that means that the 4.5 system is replaced with a 19.6 one.

 

I can go on but my fingers are starting to hurt....

[SayidSomal]

^ nicely written hogwash

 

Oh!, wait a minute I might have spoken to soon, I think i have just experienced an epiphany!..Oh my gosh, you right - it just dawned on me - indeed - clan is everything.

 

*Goes off to recite some lines of clanism inspired poetry*

 

My Clan - Ilaah wuxuu ka dhigay malab sidiisiiye

Iyaga iyo wixii madax madoow baa is le'eg!

where as you is clan; -

Macna dawladnimo leedahayba, uma muraadaane.

Mudadkiisii waa kii dugaag, maalin weyn cunaye

Maskaxdiisii waa tii tukaha, looga dhigay miide.

Nabad bay macaansanahayaan, wawse maan li'iye

[NGONGE]

^^ Both verses are brilliant in their own way and the fact that you memorised them is totally lost on you.

[nuune]

Just off topic why the somali national team lost all their games in Dare Salaam African Tournaments.

 

They didn't sing Soomaaliyeey Toosooy, instead, Tuskereey Tooseey, Tusker waa khamri ama beer

 

 

 

And we complain why the team loses each of their games since Siyaad

 

 

 

 

source

[xiinfaniin]

NGONGE, how about another verse ya xaaji

 

Meeshaan hannaan gobaniyo, hadiyad eegaayey

Haf miyuu la yiri xaydh siduu haan ku dhayanaayo

 

 

On the issue of clan, most people have no qualms with the positive utility of clan structure. What people have misgivings is the clannish ideology that featured negatively in Somalia’s civil war tragedy. In other words, qabiliyah, and not the qabiil itself, is the plague. I thought NGONGE would understand that agreeable assessment, and would not labor narrating clan dynamics in post Islamic Arabic society.

 

Even that sort of discussion came across to me as a veering off of the real argument against NGONGE’s clan is everything assertion. To which I say, the first rude interruption of Oodweyne’s applause to this fallacy is if clan is everything how can you explain the following major political dynamics in the contemporary Somali history:

 

1- In the height of Somali civil war, Abdullahi Yusuf of Mudug, admittedly a flamboyant clannish man, secured the majority votes, notably from rival clans, to ascend to the head of Somalia’s Transitional Government. We are talking about the votes of Qanyare, Aato, Yalahow, and their followers.

2- Emergence of Alshabaab in the south as the preeminent military and political power, with leaders that are not from the area clans.

3- The success of Somaliland in gaining a political foothold in SOOL region, the center of unionist, and a rival clan.

4- The success of Faroole's Galgala offence, the much talked security sweep.

 

It stands to reason that if clan is EVERYTHING as good NGONGE repeats day in and day out, a rival clan would not have voted for the presidency of Abdullahi Yusuf, Alshabaab would not have dominated the military and political affairs of the South, Somaliland and its Mother sub-clans would not have brought Lasaanood in its sphere of influence, and president Faroole of Puntland would not have dared to address security issues surrounding Galgala mountains, the center of ********** pride.

 

So the fallacy collapses under its weight as it fails to explain why such weighty matters are decided against the perceived wishes of the supposed clannish agenda. An alternative explanation is therefore needed to ascertain a plausible rationalization as to why things are the way they are in relation to Somalia’s political settings. So we say, clan is not everything in Somalia, and as in everywhere else, Somalia’s situation is a complex one. And that complexity warrants appriciation...ya xaaji.

 

If I were forced to choose a reason out of multitude of factors underpinning Somalia’s prolonged civil war, I would mark leadership failure in addressing the deep mistrust amongst Somalis as a chief reason as to why we are in the situation we find themselves in today. Somalia did not fail because of clans.

[NGONGE]

^^ This post of yours would have made sense YESTERDAY, sahib. Obviously, you didn't read much of what I wrote above. Talow gabay ka sheekeeya riirihiina degdegooda ma jira?

[xiinfaniin]

^^Of course I am trying to veer the topic to what i think is the real contention about your assertion.

 

It is not deg-deg, it is a calculated strategy

[NGONGE]

^^ Kii kaa horeeyay ba (nuune ) qasacado khamri ayuu la yimid and it still didn't stop you from saying your piece.

[xiinfaniin]

^nuune was trolling

 

I am not.

[Mayaani]

Nune sad to say we Tuskers, I saw this article about sad situation we are into so long and no end. I don't what is next brother. http://www.bartamaha.com/?p=38610

[Mayaani]

Raali ahaad haddii aan topic aan mesha lahayn ku dhex turay.

[Mr. Somalia]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

It has been a while since I felt the need to write on any subject or expect my words to be received objectively. However, lately, the subject of clans and clannishness has been repeated on this forum several times and some people challenged (albeit half-heartedly) my belief that Clan Is Everything.

 

The discussion concerning Somali clans and the perceived view people have about the clan system itself is, in my opinion, well overdue. But how should one begin to tackle this vast institution and the multitude of contradictions those opposing it display? Though I am still unsure of the path I am going to take here, I believe a start of any kind is better than no start at all. So, let us begin.

 

Now, I may come across as a tad philosophical when discussing clans but I truly cannot see any other way to approach this subject, more so when the charge laid at its door is that it is

bad for Somali society. This is why I begin by asking the question, why is it bad and in what way?

 

Those that argue against the clan system claim that it fosters hatred, spreads division and (for some) it is against the faith. Looking at it from a certain angle, all these charges have an element of truth in them. If my clan is at war with a neighbouring clan it is only natural that I would hate that clan (after all, they are killing my kin). If my clan is in dispute with other clans it is also natural that it would choose to distance itself from them and the consequence of that will be clear division. Finally, if my clan goes about killing, maiming and subjugating others for no reason other than its own gratification, it would also be in clear breach of the faith. Yet, none of the above has anything to do with the clan system or clannishness itself. In fact, all these charges can be equally directed at nation states, groups or even a single family. In other words, if my own brother gets killed by my next door neighbour it really is not likely that I will harbour love for that neighbour. And if my own brother kills and maims it will mean that my parents have given birth to a murderer but (surely) it does not mean that my parents are in breach of the faith or that my family should not exist. Better still, if my entire family were a bunch of infidels that kill and maim, it does not mean that we should get rid of the concept of families altogether!

 

 

In his

Muqadimmah

, Ibn Khaldun spoke extensively about the clan system and its importance to building a viable state. In fact, he used the term ‘

casabiyah

’ when speaking about the positive contributions clannism offers to society. Similarly, the prophet of Islam spoke about such casabiyah when he advised that one should supports one’s brother in both right and wrong (the hadeeth of course goes on to explain what right or wrong means but, more importantly, it acknowledges clan existence and allegiance). This also is apparent in the history of the Umayyad Khilafa where the residing Khalifa would gather the best poets in his Majlis (or throne) and ask them to recite poetry praising their own clans, disparaging other clans or comparing the histories of clans in general. The poetic battles were immense and no kind of insult was held back (see the duels between Jareer and Al Farazdaq). However, despite such blatant clannisim the Umayyad dynasty did not suffer and the state were functioning as well as it should. So, and this is to reply to the second charge against the topic of our discussion, clannisim does not destroy states!

 

Some people find the empty boasts about someone’s

nasab

highly vulgar and consider the idea of clan loyalty a backward trait. However, these same people are also extreme in their support for the Somali nation state and view it as something different, distinct and far removed from clannism. They would fill up with empty pride when they hear Yum-Yum’s

Somali ban ahay

yet miss the obvious point that this poem is no different to any that exalt certain tribes or clans. The only difference being that the clan here is Somalia rather than reer so and so or reer so and so.

 

This is where the idea of group dynamics, group belonging and group loyalty comes into play. Ibn Khaldun believed (as I am sure most of us do) that

without peace and justice

no group could survive. The Somali State was made of such groups (and despite the late president’s symbolic ceremony of burying clannisim) it all came down to a lack of peace and justice. The clans themselves were there before the state and, like burning embers under the dust, returned to the fore after the collapse of the state. Now many are again calling for the resurrection of the state whilst (surprisingly) insisting that clannism has no part to play in this equation. They expect people, in a land that is ravaged by war and mistrust, to wander around as individuals and trust words and sentiments rather than a clan that protects, helps and supports!

 

What is even more amazing than the contradictory nationalists are the confused Islamists. They in their part want to completely wipe the clan of the face of the earth and replace it with faith. It is not as if the prophet himself came with the message to an extremely clannish Arab society with the words

“Ana Al Nabiyo La Kathib, Ana Ibnu Cabd El Mottalib”

! It is not as if he told them that he was sent to complete the best of manners (I paraphrase of course). But were these the manners of the Roman Empire he was talking about or simple Bedouins of Qureesh? And how do they differ from the manners of any of the Muslim clans of today? Is generosity not encouraged, is tightfistedness not frowned upon? Is doing “good” and avoiding “evil” not included? What do the clannish poets mock each other with? Surely not looks alone? Surely they do it by referring to the other clans’ veering from the correct path (of goodness; good faith and good manners). Yet our Shababi preachers disagree. They act as if they are the first group to stumble upon the idea of Islam/Jihad and Ummah. They expect everyone to forget the past and follow them blindly into an uncertain future (but unlike the former president they don’t burry, they dig). What is even more confusing with them is that they too talk of a Somali state run along the lines of Islam. But if that is the case, why not put their guns down and work towards making the clans more Islamic (they are nation states on their own as it is)? Why bother with this whole notion of a SOMALIA? Then again, there are some amongst them that are looking at a bigger picture, one of a far reaching Islamic Ummah that begins in Mogadishu, Kabul and Baghdad and ends in the Canary Islands and Moscow. Ironically, theirs is also a clan. They too follow the same formula of boasting about their good traits and disparaging the bad traits of their enemy. They accept no outside advice and mistrust the intentions of anyone not connected to their

‘group’

. They provide no peace and their justice is arbitrary and selective. But because they sing the song of Islam (like the nationalists sing the one about Somalnimo) they expect people to abandon the safety of the clan and come running to them with open arms. In fact, they believe that they have eliminated clannism in the areas they control but if they know their history, they will know such a thing could never happen. Under the ashes of

Naxnu Al Shababu Lana Al Ghado

, the clan sentiments still burns brightly.

 

Some people accept the existence of clans but argue that such an institution should only exist for reasons of identification. They (rightly) quote the Quranic description of clans and nations where there is an explicit explanation for clans/nations (which is recognition). But could you really have one without the other? Could one belong to a group without venerating it and believing it to be good, is there actually a point in belonging? Surely human nature dictates that one would hold one’s group (family, clan, nation) in high regard and believe that it is as good as others (if not better). This is the logical worldly view. It is one that says

“know me, for I am from such and such clan and we are morally good in all we do”

. I mean, when was the last time you saw clans boasting about their bad birth (zina), their expertise in thievery or their historic treachery? Was it not

Qoom Loot

? But the clans of Somalia today are all Muslim and follow the Islamic principles of generosity and respect (even if some amongst them would err from time to time).

 

Is the conflict in Somalia today about belonging to

deep rooted

clans as opposed to

noxious mushrooms

, or is it one about mistrust and interests? And, more importantly, is it new? Many on this site actually argue that clans cannot dominate each other. But how do they know that? Has there been a real, concerted and open attempt for one clan to dominate another? Is it not the case that most clans regressed back to their own lands, areas and historical dwellings and most of the disputes took place in unresolved areas? The only time the issue of “domination” raises its ugly head is when clans get together to form states. A case in point being the Galgala dispute (where some from the clan residing there are complaining of a Farole domination). Another is in the SSC conflict where they allege an SL plan to oppress, subjugate and dominate them. But, in the case of Galgala it is not an actual clan trying to control another but a so-called president with a

dictatorial streak

who is fanning the flames of division there. In not allowing the customary clan apparatus to solve this dispute for him, he stands to weaken that state, plant seeds of mistrust and repeat the mistakes of the former Republic of Somalia. The SSC case is different (and here, I speak with the

blinkers

fully on). In this one, SL fully understands the

clan psychology

and is gently approaching the problem with a

“hands off”

approach. SL realises that it cannot claim its own borders without having the clans residing in those areas fully, happily and consentingly accepting such a state. It also knows that such an outcome could not materialise through the power of the gun but rather through negotiation, diplomatic seduction and clan discourse. Being a “Somali” country, it recognises that without clan consent (even amongst the

mischievously

named

triangle

) there will be no State. This is seen through the occasional clan grumbles of not having their correct number of ministers in the cabinet (as happened recently in both SL and the TFG) or when looking at some of the turncoats that are questioning the state now that their preferred government is not in power any more. Lobbies and pressure groups do not exist in Somali politics, only clans do. So, for any government to survive (be it that of Somalia, the 'federal' regional State of Puntland or the recognition-seeking republic of Somaliland) the clans have to be appeased.

 

Clans are everything and will remain so until Somalis accept (understand) this fact and go about creating acceptable clan coalitions, even if that means that the 4.5 system is replaced with a 19.6 one.

This is a good read, and I for one do appreciate it. Now, if I'm to add my $0.02 here, I strongly believe that our clans in Somalia are not the root cause of our collective misfortunes as a people. In fact, I believe the opposite--I believe in the first place, if we Somalis genuinely adhered to our shared "clan" values of justice, mutual community aid, along with a care for the needs of our fellow brothers and sisters, we could have avoided this predicament. But alas, it was not to be had.

 

The primary cause for conflict in Somalia was and is, competition over declining resources. Our problems begun with and end with, resource scarcity and poverty. We all know that our clans in Somalia, have historically fought over water and pasture for ions. Now, couple this with environmental deterioration and population pressures, we've got ourselves the resultant influx of rural communities, which the majority of Somalis belong to, to cities.

 

In the case of Somalia, this quickly brought about the complete breakdown of traditional values and created scarce opportunities to erect new and modern values which would help mitigate the newly weakened clan authority structures and kinship networks, which in the miyyi were often useful in promoting peace and justice, albeit within defined tribal boundaries.

 

In the colonial and immediate post-colonial period, it fast became obvious that Somalis were unwilling to yield to laws set by a central government, in lieu of their traditional laws, which they felt were far more superior and natural, in managing their disputes. And in turn, the power hungry governments of the day were quick to usurp the customary role of elders as peacemakers in Somalia through political manipulation and repression.

 

In the absence of this vital effectuation of resolving disputes, coupled with the unscrupulous venality and dictatorship of the reigning authorities of the day, the transfer of power from the politically weak to the politically strong and the subsequent conflicts which ensued from this became inevitable.

 

However, that the clan system in Somalia has routinely been used as a leverage by conflicting parties and that often, the leaders of such conflicting parties continually emphasize the differences rather than similarities among clans, solely to exploit their immediate kinfolk, is irrefutable.

[SayidSomal]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

^^ Both verses are brilliant in their own way and the fact that you memorised them is totally lost on you.

not totally lost on me - i was just validating your argument it is good that you are forced to clarify your earlier ambiguous argument.

[SayidSomal]

Originally posted by Mr. Somalia:

However, that the clan system in Somalia has routinely been used as a leverage by conflicting parties and that often, the leaders of such conflicting parties continually emphasize the differences rather than similarities among clans, solely to exploit their immediate kinfolk, is irrefutable.

Holy mackerel! this is called making sense - take note people even drivers of nonsense are capable making sense once in blue moon

[Alpha Blondy]

Clan predates political constructs like 'Somalia'.