Will Somalis completely rebuke Wahhabism in Somalia?

[gemini_snake]

don't get too excited. salafis are huge in the somali diaspora community so i don't see it going away in somalia any time soon.

[Monk-of-Mogadishu]

Union, this topic wasn't my own idea or inquiry, but from the opinions of family members back home in Kismayo, Ceelasha Biyaha and Gaalkacyo. They said Al-Shabaab has permanently tarnished the name of Shariah Law in the country as far as anyone's interpretation was concerned. People for 20-30 years going as far back as the 80s, yearned for some kind of Islamic rule - more to do with romanticism than anything, thinking it to be a utopia. Now, it doesn't matter if you think Al-Shabaab's Shariah was real or fake Shariah - their law was the only thing people saw as Shariah in their entire lives. And to be modest about it, they hate it with a passion. It won't be government edict, but the people themselves throwing away their ninja outfits and their cut-off slacks and beards, they will flock to liberalism.

Al-Shabaab and literally every group that calls itself "Islamic" be it the Sufis or the Wahhabis, have brought nothing but a heightened level of violence to the country. Somalis will flock to secularism. Flock to it.

The only issue is the large number of Wahhabis in the diaspora (virtually everyone on this forum is a part-time Wahhabi - clubbing on thursday, praying on friday), but they will have no teeth once Somalis wipe out the Wahhabis back home.

[Garuun]

monk

the only problem is you reversing the somali history line..wrong direction according to the reality..

clan wars caused 100x dead and destruction than the late ideoligal war ..and even the late sufferings most of the agony was due to foreign interference politically and miltary..

from 2006 Ethiopia alone killed over 40,000, displaced millons, distroyed entire neighbourhoohs in Mogadishia, even used phosphate bombs in in the city.Amisom continuing the same path killing additional 30,000 somalis and displacing more.five year on the brutal and systimatic campaign against somali people is funded and continued.

if anything the voiceless and deprived somali peole will flock to their religion, to Allah the Allmighty.

[Coeus]

Somalia´s golden age was under secularism, when bearded men whith kindergarden education didnt rule the nation. Somalia with Al shabab has been a Somalia wich has become the poster child for Famine and terrorism. The country will go the same mild secular way, turkey went. Today secular Turkey is advancing and improving, while places like Somalia is begging for food. Yes drought didnt come because of Wahabism, but the wahabis and their laws enabled this famine.

[The_Emperior5]

Interesting debate

[Garuun]

Somalia´s golden age was under secularism, when bearded men whith kindergarden education didnt rule the nation. Somalia with Al shabab has been a Somalia wich has become the poster child for Famine and terrorism. The country will go the same mild secular way, turkey went. Today secular Turkey is advancing and improving, while places like Somalia is begging for food. Yes drought didnt come because of Wahabism, but the wahabis and their laws enabled this famine.

Then Let somalis choose their leaders and how they want be ruled.

[garoweboy]

Somalia´s golden age was under secularism, when bearded men whith kindergarden education didnt rule the nation. Somalia with Al shabab has been a Somalia wich has become the poster child for Famine and terrorism. The country will go the same mild secular way, turkey went. Today secular Turkey is advancing and improving, while places like Somalia is begging for food. Yes drought didnt come because of Wahabism, but the wahabis and their laws enabled this famine.

Then Let somalis choose their leaders and how they want be ruled.

[Coeus]

Somalia´s golden age was under secularism, when bearded men whith kindergarden education didnt rule the nation. Somalia with Al shabab has been a Somalia wich has become the poster child for Famine and terrorism. The country will go the same mild secular way, turkey went. Today secular Turkey is advancing and improving, while places like Somalia is begging for food. Yes drought didnt come because of Wahabism, but the wahabis and their laws enabled this famine.

Then Let somalis choose their leaders and how they want be ruled.

The people are too uneducated. Only 1/4 Somali males can read in Somalia. And the women are worst off. It is the people that did chose Al shabab and look how that turned out. A goverment is supposed to educate and elevate its masses.

By the end of the 60´s Somalia had over 90 different parties. Some based on Qabil, other on religion, culture etc.

Siad barre wasnt chosen by the people yet he improved the nations literacy, he established good diplomatic relatiosn with Nations other africans couldnt. It is because of him we still have such favourable position with the Arabs today.

Although im not saying a dictatorship is the answer. Im just highlighting that the uneducated masses cannot make important desicions for the nations future,prosperity and freedom.

Atleast not until the people have been educated enough that they can debate among themselves on what works and dont work for Somalia and its people. The tribe mentality prevalent in the Nomad cannot reach the halls and offices of the goverment.

[Nabadiyocaano]

Media has played a huge role in demonising or elevating public figures in the 21st century. Whether the people are educated or not. The people have to be consulted i.e selling you're ideology to them first if it isn't working be ready to step down. This can be done through schools, universities, mosques, social media and charities etc.

I say this because working from the bottom up works with a majority muslim and single cultural ethnicity. Just adopting the same western political and economical values may be a risk. As it is almost always an imposed system which may be alien to that nation.

Some leftists in the western world have been found to even admire Islamist rhetoric for its liberatory aspirations and its aura of cultural authenticity. Due to this they also found muslims clash with imposed western type secularism.

[FAH1223]

We need to return to the principles of ijtihad. We must democratize the interpretation of religion, rather than allowing a small group of long dead medieval sheiks to monopolize the interpretation of the religion as if they were Prophets of God. Wahabists themselves use (or rather abuse) ijtihad, and they are responsible for throwing out hundreds of Islamic legal commentaries and coming up with their own set of laws, such as their disregard for the four witnesses necessary to stone someone for adultery. Are we going to sit idle and let the dead and extremists monopolize faith? I think not.

You actually have a point that groups like Al-Shabab and the Taliban disregard the four witness requirements.

I mean, in the 500-600 years after Nabi Muhammad (saw) died, there were only 6 cases of stoning for adultery. The one that happened during the time of the Prophet, the woman begged for the punishment.

There is nothing primitive, anti modern or anti freedom about Sharia. Infact, Sharia is not that different from common law. Talk to your local shukyookh/culema and professors that specialize in both constitutional law and Sharia. Loads and loads of similarities from the talks and one on one interactions I've had with them during the past couple years. Sharia is the divine way for generating legislation in accordance to what has been provided to us in the Qur'an and hadith.

A group of primitive barbarians got oil money and power. Since the 1970s they have spread their tribal cultural interpretation of Islam as Sharia. Today, this interpretation of sharia is the accepted and the standard one by most Somalis and a growing number in many other Muslim countries. And I'm talking about the Shababs/Taliban types.

What is the result of all this?

The push for secularism especially extreme secularism... which union, monk and yalaxoow advocate for. Turkey, has been saved from the influence of the Najd due to their secularism created by Ataturk which makes the AKP an interesting movement because the religious conservative Turks from the country side have been minimially influenced by Saudia. But, things are changing and the radical secular people in the army are being silenced.

Today in Afghanistan, they opened Sharia courts. But the Taliban closed them down. Why? Sharia is apparently a lot more liberal than Pashtun code. Not surprising in the very least.

May Allah save us from the pitfalls of secularism and the fitnah from the Najd. Ameen.

[abdikarim86]

We need to return to the principles of ijtihad. We must democratize the interpretation of religion, rather than allowing a small group of long dead medieval sheiks to monopolize the interpretation of the religion as if they were Prophets of God. Wahabists themselves use (or rather abuse) ijtihad, and they are responsible for throwing out hundreds of Islamic legal commentaries and coming up with their own set of laws, such as their disregard for the four witnesses necessary to stone someone for adultery. Are we going to sit idle and let the dead and extremists monopolize faith? I think not.

You actually have a point that groups like Al-Shabab and the Taliban disregard the four witness requirements.

I mean, in the 500-600 years after Nabi Muhammad (saw) died, there were only 6 cases of stoning for adultery. The one that happened during the time of the Prophet, the woman begged for the punishment.

There is nothing primitive, anti modern or anti freedom about Sharia. Infact, Sharia is not that different from common law. Talk to your local shukyookh/culema and professors that specialize in both constitutional law and Sharia. Loads and loads of similarities from the talks and one on one interactions I've had with them during the past couple years. Sharia is the divine way for generating legislation in accordance to what has been provided to us in the Qur'an and hadith.

A group of primitive barbarians got oil money and power. Since the 1970s they have spread their tribal cultural interpretation of Islam as Sharia. Today, this interpretation of sharia is the accepted and the standard one by most Somalis and a growing number in many other Muslim countries. And I'm talking about the Shababs/Taliban types.

What is the result of all this?

The push for secularism especially extreme secularism... which union, monk and yalaxoow advocate for. Turkey, has been saved from the influence of the Najd due to their secularism created by Ataturk which makes the AKP an interesting movement because the religious conservative Turks from the country side have been minimially influenced by Saudia. But, things are changing and the radical secular people in the army are being silenced.

Today in Afghanistan, they opened Sharia courts. But the Taliban closed them down. Why? Sharia is apparently a lot more liberal than Pashtun code. Not surprising in the very least.

May Allah save us from the pitfalls of secularism and the fitnah from the Najd. Ameen.

Fah could you provide a source of that last statement about sharia courts in
afghanistan

[FAH1223]

abdikarim, actually it wasnt taliban per se though they are majority pashtun

it was the pashtun tribes that pushed for it and ultimately disagreed with the courts i'll get a link

[yungnfresh]

If anything, I think Al-Shabaab's abuse of Sharia Law only makes the commonfolk in Somalia yearn that much more for true Sharia Law in it's pristine form. The people there aren't ignorant of the Diin and are well aware that Al-Shabaab's brand of Sharia Law is grossly misinterpreted. They're disillusioned with Al-Shabaab, not Islam.

[melo]

We need to return to the principles of ijtihad. We must democratize the interpretation of religion, rather than allowing a small group of long dead medieval sheiks to monopolize the interpretation of the religion as if they were Prophets of God. Wahabists themselves use (or rather abuse) ijtihad, and they are responsible for throwing out hundreds of Islamic legal commentaries and coming up with their own set of laws, such as their disregard for the four witnesses necessary to stone someone for adultery. Are we going to sit idle and let the dead and extremists monopolize faith? I think not.

You actually have a point that groups like Al-Shabab and the Taliban disregard the four witness requirements.

I mean, in the 500-600 years after Nabi Muhammad (saw) died, there were only 6 cases of stoning for adultery. The one that happened during the time of the Prophet, the woman begged for the punishment.

There is nothing primitive, anti modern or anti freedom about Sharia. Infact, Sharia is not that different from common law. Talk to your local shukyookh/culema and professors that specialize in both constitutional law and Sharia. Loads and loads of similarities from the talks and one on one interactions I've had with them during the past couple years. Sharia is the divine way for generating legislation in accordance to what has been provided to us in the Qur'an and hadith.

A group of primitive barbarians got oil money and power. Since the 1970s they have spread their tribal cultural interpretation of Islam as Sharia. Today, this interpretation of sharia is the accepted and the standard one by most Somalis and a growing number in many other Muslim countries. And I'm talking about the Shababs/Taliban types.

What is the result of all this?

The push for secularism especially extreme secularism... which union, monk and yalaxoow advocate for. Turkey, has been saved from the influence of the Najd due to their secularism created by Ataturk which makes the AKP an interesting movement because the religious conservative Turks from the country side have been minimially influenced by Saudia. But, things are changing and the radical secular people in the army are being silenced.

Today in Afghanistan, they opened Sharia courts. But the Taliban closed them down. Why? Sharia is apparently a lot more liberal than Pashtun code. Not surprising in the very least.

May Allah save us from the pitfalls of secularism and the fitnah from the Najd. Ameen.

Good Post , especially the bolder part.

One thing i should note out is that, its too easy to fall into "blame the Najdis". Hamza Yusuf made this point, when he said although he doesn't like them, it is unfair to put the blame on them, when they've consistently condemned extreme groups. It was bin Baaz who called Bin Laden a khaariji, well before any one else. It was also the Najdis who have routinely condemned suicide bombings.

[melo]

clubbing on thursday, praying on friday)

So praying is considered a trait of wahabism? Ok