Shariah in Lawless Somalia

Abukar Arman
Sunday Times (South Africa)

Nowhere in the world is Shariah more contested ( yet seldom debated) than in war-weary Somalia where each of the entities competing for power claims to have embraced it while condemning its detractor, or rather, its enemy, as a dangerous imposter.

All the colorful politics motivating each contender aside, the most pressing question begging an answer is: Can lawless Somalia be governed by Shariah?

Short answer: It depends!

If by Shariah we mean the Talibanesque, self-righteous, and unjust brand currently being practiced by the Somali Neo-Islamists known as al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam, the answer is: No.

As these two groups have been asserting their authority through violence-driven territorial expansion, they have been rapidly loosing the public confidence necessary for them to sustain any gains. Horrific accounts attesting to their ignorance and to the cruelty of their method have been stirring panic and cultivating hate. Stories such as the two Neo-Islamist assassins who followed their victim-to-be into a mosque and prayed alongside him only to shoot him in the head after he stepped outside the mosque raise serious questions regarding these groups’ understanding of Islam and Shariah.

Theirs is an obtuse, if not dysfunctional, interpretation of Shariah. They are oblivious to the education-based societal transformation that the classic Shariah seeks to achieve. To them, Shariah is a purposeless, uncompassionate, punishment-driven set of laws that are arbitrarily implemented without consideration of time, circumstances or objectives.

Therefore, it is a matter of time before the masses would conquer their collective fear and revolt against this accountable to no one, selectively oppressive, and entirely alien brand of Shariah.

If, however, by Shariah we mean the classic concept of Islamic governance adapted to address contemporary political, social, economic, and spiritual challenges in a just way, the answer is: Yes.

As a country whose national institutions have been utterly destroyed and almost all threads that once wove its society together have been unraveled, Islam is the only thread that remains intact. Therefore, adopting Shariah as a set of rules, regulations, and values to govern Somalia is not only feasible but perhaps the only sensible means to resuscitate that dying state.

Granted, the name “Shariah” connotes a politically radioactive concept in the West and that there are those who believe that Shariah and governance are mutually exclusive; however, that is hardly a fair estimation of this profoundly misconstrued system. [One might gain a broader perspective of this concept by reading Noah Feldman of Harvard’s article “Why Shariah?” published by N.Y. Times March 16, 2008]

The Somali people are desperate for a government and indeed a system of governance (any for that matter) that they can invest their trust in; a system that protects them against injustices and guards their God-given right to life, to own property, to enjoy basic freedoms and to exercise their freewill.

Therefore, President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and his government would have to identify the most crucial needs of the people.

Granted, in a number of his speeches while visiting the Somali Diaspora in the United States, he highlighted security, humanitarian needs, and capacity building as being his top priorities. While no one would dispute the importance of these three, some question ‘why is peace and reconciliation not part of the top three priorities?’ They argue that there should be an ongoing process that resists any temptation to give up prematurely.

That being said, the model of Shariah that is likely to succeed is the one that genuinely addresses the following categories of needs:

First: Preserving the sanctity of life and the provision of a secure environment in which the average Somali could reach his/her optimum potential. Within this, protecting the lives of civilians and addressing the humanitarian crisis reign high.

Second: Instituting a peace and reconciliation policy that would keep the door open and the peace process in motion.

Third: Protecting individual properties against any abuses including nationalization, and state properties by establishing a transparent system of accountability.

Fourth: Instituting policies that guarantee equality before the law and protect the rights of women and minorities.

Fifth: Protecting individuals from power abuse and preserving individual’s honor by protecting him or her against false accusations, imprisonment, slander, and character assassination.

Sixth: Protecting freedom of assembly, conscience, and thought.

Seventh: Promoting education and protecting the God-given right of the individual citizen to question and scrutinize their leaders by protecting their right to elect their representatives.

Eighth: Enacting policies promoting ethical and moral conduct that, among other things, criminalize favoritism and other corruptions such as bribery and nepotism.

Ninth: Paving the way for the development of independent institutions that, on one hand, ensure a system of checks and balances, and on the other, enhance the overall function of the government.

Tenth: Instituting policies that protect the sovereignty of the nation and promote neighborly coexistence with neighboring states and with the rest of the international community.

President Ahmed must succeed in persuading people to accept the legitimacy of his government and to trust the individuals appointed to exercise that authority. And, in order to achieve that, those entrusted to lead must resort to taking tangible actions that would restore law and order and improve the lives of people. They must do away with the clan-based quota system that by and large appoints incompetent demagogues who neither serve the nation nor the clans in whose name they were appointed. More importantly, they must streamline all the militias led by shrouded warlords who are now considered government allies into a disciplined army that is accountable.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Abukar Arman is a writer who lives in Ohio. His articles and analysis are widely published.

Institutional Islamophobia and the Politics of a Minor's Choice

Abukar Arman




Not since France’s banning of wearing the hijab or Islamic headwear in schools has institutional Islamophobia unveiled its ugly head under the spotlight of world attention.
In Florida, political pressure has caused the scale of justice to tilt.

The case of Rifqa Bary—a 17 year old Muslim girl who converted to Christianity then ran away from her parents’ home in Ohio (to Florida)—has set the stage for the ideological bankrupt Neocons and Right Wing evangelical to pursue another desperate attempt to resuscitate their all but defunct “clash of civilization” scare.

Rifqa claimed that her parents believe in ‘honor killing’ and that they were planning to execute her as a result of her religious conversion- a claim that later proved inconsistent, to say the least.

Discrepancies to Rifqa’s account emerged when her parents started to openly discuss their daughter’s situation. Clearly Rifqa had her way with her family. "We love her; we want her back. She is free to practice her religion, whatever she believes in. That's O.K.," Mr. Bary told media and law enforcement.

The local police, the children’s services and the county prosecutor in Ohio all concluded that the Bary family is a caring family who is genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of their daughter. The Bary family knew about their daughter’s conversion three years earlier, and had even allowed her to join the cheerleading team of her high school.

The parents believe that their daughter was “brainwashed” by an internet-based virtual Pastor by the name Blake Lorenz who leads a religious outfit called the Global Revolution Church. Mr. Lorenz openly espouses anti-Islamic views. He has been quoted saying “Christians are at war with Islam and Islam is evil.”

It should surprise no one that this case has attracted the ‘who-is-who’ among the usual suspects- the founder of paranoia fueling website JihadWatch, Robert Spencer; the notorious neocon policy worrier and the founder of Center for security Policy, Frank Gaffney, and Right Wing “legal pit-bull,” John Stemberger, to name a few.

Their strategy was predictably straight out of the Neocon/Right-Wing playbook crafted by the same overzealous special interest ideologues whose “global war on terrorism” policy has left a legacy of destruction and massive political debris around the world that would take generations to clean.

To these political predators, facts are elastic variables; they are inflated when they are available to support their cause and are conveniently fabricated when they are not. They rely on propaganda as the means to demonize and dehumanize others. And they use any means at their disposal to reach their goal, regardless of the fairness, decency, or how their actions may hurt others.

In dealing with the case at hand, instead of providing convincing evidence to support Rifqa’s claim, they resorted to a two track strategy that puts the brand of Shariah (Islamic law) that promotes the killing of an apostate on trial, and to wage a smear campaign on Noor Islamic and Cultural Center (NICC) in Columbus area by accusing it of espousing extremist ideologies and being connected to international terrorism. [This author is one of the many Central Ohio Muslims who worship in that center]

Of course, this diversionary tactic is designed to stir public suspicion and outrage. It is nothing but smoke screen to cover the real issues. Whether a minor has a choice and whether a non-family adult could hide a minor.

During a controversial fatwa—religious edict—that sentenced an Afghani man who converted to Christianity to death a few years ago, over 100 scholars in the US and many more around the world have written a unified opinion that no one should be sentenced to death for deciding to change his or her religion. And that the only time such sentence has a religious (as well as secular) justification is in case of proven treason against the state.

The Qur’an—the highest authority of the moral code in Islam—unequivocally states that “Let there be no compulsion in religion” Chapter 2: Verse 256. Because, like love and similar matters of the heart, faith is a conviction embraced in the heart; and as such, can never be forced. Forcing such matters renders the opposite effect.

Also, in Chapter 4: Verse 137, God says, “Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth (converted or became apostate) and again come to believe and again deny the truth and thereafter, grow stubborn in their denial of the truth, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way.” This verse clearly indicates that even those who professed Islam and then rejected it more than once cannot be condemned to execution. They are only accountable to God.

Also, in Chapter 18: Verse 29, God says “The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve”.

"Hate groups appear to be using this family matter as an opportunity to attack the Muslim community and Islamic organizations in order to further their religious and political goals," read a statement issued by NICC. And “These Islamophobes are not only paranoiac but are so manipulative. Their method of guilt by association is comical in a way and dangerous in another. To follow their logic is to declare the disciples of Jesus who joined him in the last supper as co-conspirators in the crucifixion” added Dr. Hany Saqr, the center’s Director.

Back to the real issue of contention: on their part, investigators from Florida have completed their interstate investigation. Their findings are believed to being in agreement with previous investigations done in Ohio. Their report was turned to Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who, instead of sending Rifqa back to her parents, decided to grant a motion filed by Mr. Stemberger in which he requested the evidence to be sealed- an evidence that could very well vindicated the parents.

The Florida statute dealing with Juvenile Justice and Interstate Compact on Juveniles is clear “A person may not knowingly provide aid to an unmarried minor who has run away from home without first contacting the minor's parent or guardian or notifying a law enforcement officer.” Mr. Lorenz hid the runaway girl for two weeks; however, no one is after him, so far. He is currently “reorganizing” his church to protect it from future lawsuits.

In this all too familiar circus, I cannot help but wonder: what if a non-Muslim minor was recruited through cyber space by an adult Imam (Muslim cleric) who leads a religious entity called the Global Revolution Mosque whose objective is to target youth of all ages in order to change the world through spiritual revolution!

Bridges of Rhetoric and Suspicion

Abukar Arman
Huffington Post

In his attempt to improve relations with the Muslim world, President Obama has done what no other American president has ever done before.

Starting with his inauguration speech in which he stressed on the importance of relaxing the defensive posture so that the demonization process could stop. Following with his speech at the Turkish Parliament in which he offered the reassurance that neither the US nor the West is in war with the Muslim world. And concluding with his historic Cairo speech in which he highlighted the importance of mutual respect in order for genuine dialogue and understanding to take root.

However, the litmus test is how quickly certain unjust policies instituted after the tragic events of 9/11 are reversed, and how impartially America treats Muslims facing the justice system.

“At our department, our Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) is building stronger relationships with Arab and Muslim Americans…,” asserted Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in her recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. And, while Secretary Napolitano projects a pristine picture, unfortunately the reality on the ground tells a different story- one in which rhetoric is in abundance and substance is scarce.

For almost a decade now, the constitutional right guaranteeing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty was routinely compromised any time the accused was a Muslim. Granted, Muslims, by and large, enjoy more freedom to practice their religion and build religious institutions in America than in any other country, including their own. However, Muslims of Arab background continue to be subjected to routine harassment and mistreatment. Recently, another Muslim group—the Somalis—has joined them to share their uncomfortable space under the spotlight.

For the Somalis, matters have taken the wrong turn when 20 young men turned out missing in the Minneapolis area and three turned out dead. These youth are believed to have joined al-Shabab, and are feared to come back with militant ideologies. Al-Shabab is listed in the US as a terrorist organization.

While the Somali community is generally mindful that a serious investigation is indeed warranted, it is concerned about how sensationalized media reports are already indicting the community and its religious institutions in the court of public opinion. For this could set the stage for severe backlash, and for law enforcement to exert unchecked authority.

And now that two Somali youth are in custody and one pleading guilty to aiding al-Shabab and the second’s process being underway, the metaphorical audible whispers of the community have been: the stage is set for the FBI to make multiple arrests during the holy month of Ramadan and right before the eighth 9/11 memorial day.

The Somali community feels “under siege.”

And this sense of cynicism settled in when complaints about FBI officers entering homes and businesses under false pretences and without any court warrant were brushed off by the very watchdog mandated to guard against abuse of power and protect constitutional rights- CRCL.

It has grown more profoundly when, in what seemed inexplicable stretch of jurisdiction, complaints about counterintelligence professionals from New York Police Department showing up at homes and businesses in Minneapolis were again defended by CRCL representatives as standard operational procedure. These kinds of dismissive treatments, needless to say, put shroud of suspicion around that office’s claim of independence. CRCL representatives should never function as the FBI’s public relations office. Of course, there is nothing wrong with projecting a good image of the law enforcement offices and authorities that protect our lives and communities, but that should be the function of a different department.

To make matter worse, this whole thing comes at a time when relations between US Muslims and law enforcement authorities has been strained over the discovery that the FBI has been sending informants and planting agent saboteurs in mosques to provoke worshippers and trap unsuspecting youth.

“While law enforcement professionals are in general fact-driven people, a significant number of them still function as though it is 2003 and America is waging an ill-advised war against Iraq. And changing that frame of mind where facts and fiction confluence will take time,” said one community member who was a victim of that frame of mind.

Earlier this year, a coalition of America's largest Muslim organizations issued an open letter asserting their intention to halt cooperation with the law enforcement authorities so long as the FBI continues mixing politics with law enforcement practices and implicating reputable organizations with sheer innuendoes. Despite the vicious disinformation routinely cooked by the likes of Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer and David Horowitz who believe that the seven million Muslims in America are “sleeping cells” and “ticking bombs,” facts indicate the complete opposite.

In conclusion, in order to build bona fide bridges of understanding that could significantly reduce elements hindering the US and the Muslim world to work together on critical issues of mutual importance, the following real change must take place:

First, real policies, such as the US Patriot Act must be improved and made more balanced.

Second, Muslims should be treated as stakeholders and not as aliens with bombs strapped around their waists.

Third, both the administration and local governments should appoint competent Muslims as high level policy advisors, not simply as tokens. The more independent-minded these individuals are, the more credibility they earn for their respective offices.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Abukar Arman is a writer who lives in Ohio. His articles and analysis are widely published.