Distrubing article...Secularism for Somalia Forever

[xoogSADE14]

Who is going to define what real Islam is?

The holy Qur'an and the saxiix ahadith of the Prophet Muxammad (PBUH).

[Alluring]

xoogSADE14,


The example used for Saudi Arabia was because it is a place associated with Islam, and I merely was stating that they do not even use Shari'a Law. But, the fact is even if Shari'a Law was used in Somalia, do you honestly think they would use it in a postive way? You are talking about the same people who day in and day out kill one another because of clan. They'll find another way to use Shari'a Law to attack others.

Also Shari'a Law has many interpretations, no one person really knows how to use it the right way. And most importantly not many people will sign up to want to be governed by Sharia Law. If no such country which is more peaceful hasn't subscribed to it what makes you think the most fragmented nation of planet earth will? Sometimes being wishful is just a that a wish. It isn't going to turn into reality.

Question to you: What was wrong with Somalia before the civil war? No one was killing another, people could wear what they wanted, there was freedom for peoples rights, children got educated, etc. What is wrong with that type of society?

[Shirib]

Any law can be manipulated so why say no to Sharia and yes to secularism?

[Alluring]

[quote="Shirib"]Any law can be manipulated so why say no to Sharia and yes to secularism?[/quote]

TBH, I don't believe in any form of governance nor do I care much about politics. But one if directly involved in religion, and another is not.

Religion is a passion for some people, and most times people use religion as an agenda. Does Sharif Ahmed NOT ring a bell?

[Twisted_Logic]

Who is going to define what real Islam is?

The holy Qur'an and the saxiix ahadith of the Prophet Muxammad (PBUH).

People can have the same literature and at the same time draw a very divergent and conflicting interpretations. The Sunnis and Shia both believe in the Qur'an and agree a major portion of the Hadith. This is not stopping them from having a very antithetical and sometimes alarmingly contradictory views about the nature of Islam. Even in a 99% Sunni Islamic society like ours, the current battles that plague our country are largely derived from religion. Al Shabab, Hizbul-Islam, Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jameeca and the TFG all believe in the holiness of their struggle and see their efforts as being God's work. Your point is quite naive and simplistic, especially with the current religious wars tormenting in our country in the background.

[Shirib]

Any law can be manipulated so why say no to Sharia and yes to secularism?

TBH, I don't believe in any form of governance nor do I care much about politics. But one if directly involved in religion, and another is not.

Religion is a passion for some people, and most times people use religion as an agenda. Does Sharif Ahmed NOT ring a bell?

Haye that's true religion is dear to most and people can use it as an agenda. But the same thing can be done with nationalism, freedom, etc. So why are we saying no to shariah and yes to secularism.

Some of the most heinous acts in history of mankind were done under secularism.

Slavery in America was being done, while preaching Justice and Liberty for All, and the Holocaust was done under a system of Nationalism.

So if the argument is it can be manipulated and what not, why are we saying yes to secularism and not to sharia.

[Voltage]

Who is going to define what real Islam is?

The holy Qur'an and the saxiix ahadith of the Prophet Muxammad (PBUH).

I don't understand why you and many others do not see that Twisted_Logic has an agenda? Sxb how could someone who was in Somalia and taking dugsi there when I was running around middle school and then subsequently went to Pakistan and had the same or even more interaction with Islam seemingly know less about Islam than my white friends who take Islam 101 class? The man said something about Adams and religion and politics not understanding there is a difference between an adherent to Christianity, which is a religion, and his ability to separate religion from politics versus an adherent to Islam, which is a way of life, and ability to "separate" your way of life from politics. A child wouldn't make such an argument. Every and any Muslim has to pay certain amounts of tax during certain amounts of the year. This is not generosity you choose but one which is a stipulation as a member of the faith. How could this law, a "Sharia law code", be separated from the overall law structure of an almost entirely Muslim population?

Every single American will tell you the base of our laws is "Judea-Christian" values. Should the majority Muslim nation be stopped from basing the laws that govern its own majority from its "Muslim" values? How could someone who has more interaction with Islam not understand this unless it was pure indho-adeeg led by agenda?

[Alluring]

Any law can be manipulated so why say no to Sharia and yes to secularism?

TBH, I don't believe in any form of governance nor do I care much about politics. But one if directly involved in religion, and another is not.

Religion is a passion for some people, and most times people use religion as an agenda. Does Sharif Ahmed NOT ring a bell?

Haye that's true religion is dear to most and people can use it as an agenda. But the same thing can be done with nationalism, freedom, etc. So why are we saying no to shariah and yes to secularism.

Some of the most heinous acts in history of mankind were done under secularism.

Slavery in America was being done, while preaching Justice and Liberty for All, and the Holocaust was done under a system of Nationalism.

So if the argument is it can be manipulated and what not, why are we saying yes to secularism and not to sharia.

Wrong! Actually both those things involved religion - Christianity.

[xoogSADE14]

Alluring

Shariah Law has a better chance in Somalia than western style democracy walaal. Truth is, like Voltage wrote in the previous page Somalis have been using Shariah in the form of Somali customary law for centuries whereas the average Somali would not be able to describe the basic tenets of western style democracy even today.

Somalia before the civil war was a country held together by the brute force of a revolutionary government that was not based on Shariah. I'm old enough to remember all the faasiq that used to go on in Xamar.

Had it not been for the civil war, truth be told Somalia would probably have one of the highest AIDS and drug epidemics in the horn. Our "sheikhs" were guys who claimed to communicate with dead ancestors and pray their daily prayers in the Kacba!

TL

We don't have Shias in Somalia so that comparison is dead right there. All these other groups you mentioned are foreign influenced groups and are directly controlled from foreign soil. The Qur'an isn't open to different interpretations sxb and most of the xadiiths are clear as day. We've tried all other forms of government, they all failed why not give Sharia Law a real chance to succeed or fail on its own merits instead allowing outside forces to tell us how to run our own country?

[Twisted_Logic]

Any law can be manipulated so why say no to Sharia and yes to secularism?

TBH, I don't believe in any form of governance nor do I care much about politics. But one if directly involved in religion, and another is not.

Religion is a passion for some people, and most times people use religion as an agenda. Does Sharif Ahmed NOT ring a bell?

Haye that's true religion is dear to most and people can use it as an agenda. But the same thing can be done with nationalism, freedom, etc. So why are we saying no to shariah and yes to secularism.

Some of the most heinous acts in history of mankind were done under secularism.

Slavery in America was being done, while preaching Justice and Liberty for All, and the Holocaust was done under a system of Nationalism.

So if the argument is it can be manipulated and what not, why are we saying yes to secularism and not to sharia.

It will be wrong and dangerous to ignore the strong religious undercurrents that justified and sustained both slavery and the holocaust.

With regards to why secularism and not Sharia. It is all theological. Religion is infallible while secularism is not. It is hard to comply with a rule that claims that it is above criticism and requires total blind submission employed by certain individuals. It is hard for me to trust such a system.

[Leila25]

Sharia law at the end of the day is man's interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, its not sacred. You had to have 4 witnesses if you were raped in Pakistan, no rapists were getting convicted, if you didnt come up with the 4 witnesses you faced a charge of adultery, that was their Sharia law. It was reformed in 2006. Another country will call it Sharia law and have a different application.

[Shirib]

Alluring,

Hitler wasn't saying lets kill Jews cause of Christianity, but rather because of Nazi Germany

And the US laws didn't have slaves due to Christianity.

If I am wrong tell me where did religion play in either the US law, or Nazi law.

[Shirib]

TL,

Don't try to change the script, both those nations were secular, and both used an undertone other than religion that was really pushing the envelope.

Hitler didn't say kill all the Jews cause of Christianity but rather cause they were hurting Nazi Germany, and the US clearly followed separation of Church and State and slavery was done under, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal"

And to keep goin, if u disagreed with the fuhrer u were killed, if u disagreed with Pol Pot u were killed, if u disagreed with Stalin u were killed...all of em were secular

[Voltage]

Alluring you misunderstand what Sharia even means. The way you speak of it you seem it is something concrete and whole and not just a general way of looking at law from Islamic values. When someone says the American constitution, it is not something concrete but something that is changing, has changed, and has looked at many viewpoints using even international law and as well depends on precedent to cement even how what is consitutitonal can be judged from the specific amendments in the consitution. Somalia under Siad had largely Sharia law codes particularly with civil aspects. Somalia since its foundation as modern state and beyond had a democratic constitution based on Sharia law codes with a democratic constitution that said "Islam is the religion of the state". Cigaal penned a letter to the UK on the eve of Somaliland's independence from UK saying "our culture is pastoral nomadism and our law is based on Islam". Before colonialism, xeer Somalia has foundation in Islamic Sharia with customary law filling in for gaps that nomads saw in rules which should govern their own specific existence as nomads. You cannot look at the issue of Sharia as something uniform and concrete, it is an umbrella which covers almost all of our own natural cultural laws. What you have a problem with is the Hudud laws but you need to understand is when a majority Muslim nation does not eat pork and a Somali state says that pork cannot be served in public Somali schools, it is Sharia law.

[Twisted_Logic]

Who is going to define what real Islam is?

The holy Qur'an and the saxiix ahadith of the Prophet Muxammad (PBUH).

I don't understand why you and many others do not see that Twisted_Logic has an agenda? Sxb how could someone who was in Somalia and taking dugsi there when I was running around middle school and then subsequently went to Pakistan and had the same or even more interaction with Islam seemingly know less about Islam than my white friends who take Islam 101 class? The man said something about Adams and religion and politics not understanding there is a difference between an adherent to Christianity, which is a religion, and his ability to separate religion from politics versus an adherent to Islam, which is a way of life, and ability to "separate" your way of life from politics. A child wouldn't make such an argument. Every and any Muslim has to pay certain amounts of tax during certain amounts of the year. This is not generosity you choose but one which is a stipulation as a member of the faith. How could this law, a "Sharia law code", be separated from the overall law structure of an almost entirely Muslim population?

Every single American will tell you the base of our laws is "Judea-Christian" values. Should the majority Muslim nation be stopped from basing the laws that govern its own majority from its "Muslim" values? How could someone who has more interaction with Islam not understand this unless it was pure indho-adeeg led by agenda?

Here comes the psychologically challenged fool who thinks that he knows my biography

I don't know what Christians you have been dealing with, but the ones I know and the ones I have studied, do in fact see Christianity as a way of life. If you find this point hard to believe, research about homosexuality and the passions behind the banning of gay marriages and other practices seen as being contrary to the teaching of Jesus.

It is funny. You have started your comment with a claim that Christianity is not a way of life, and then you concluded it with another claim that asserts that the US constitution is based upon the Judea-Christian values. You don't even follow what you write and have no idea what you are talking about. If you ever get the time, do read John Adams' A DISSERTATION ON THE CANON AND FEUDAL LAW a seminal work that made one of the strongest cases for secularity when the US Constitution was being written.

Educate yourself.