Somalia's al-Shabab bans mixed-sex handshakes

[hatzel]

Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab.

Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public.

It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.

The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law.

The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging.

The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia.

Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991.

The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.



Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12138627)

[Ocean Seal]

Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab.

Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public.

It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.

The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law.

The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging.

The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia.

Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991.

The UN-backed government only controls parts of Mogadishu and a few other areas.



Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12138627)
From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?

[Che a chara]

Crazy bad. What's the socialist 'scene' like in Somalia ?

[Os Cangaceiros]

From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?

I'm guessing from certain religious authorities?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Crazy bad. What's the socialist 'scene' like in Somalia ?

There isn't one.

Unless you count the pirates.

[Che a chara]

There isn't one.

Unless you count the pirates.

Yeah well they do expropriate a lot of the wealth :D

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Crazy bad. What's the socialist 'scene' like in Somalia ?
If they had one, they'd all be killed by crazy-fucks like Al-Shabab. Most people are more concerned with not dying in the street everyday rather than forming political organizations to fight back.
Al-Shabab is pretty fucked up. They're the Al-Qaeda affiliated group a few crazy teenage Americans go join.

[hatzel]

From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?

I haven't found any references in the Qur'an explicitly calling for anything like this level of stringency, and I've been frantically flipping through my copy since I posted this (what, it's difficult finding verses related to very specific issues, I'll have you know! :crying:)...I'll report back with my findings as and when they come...so far, the only stuff I could find would suggest limiting interaction between men and women in private, but as they don't even want them chatting in public...until I find some solid evidence on the contrary, I'm going to assume that these is slightly over the top 'preventative' measures, even when viewed from the perspective of 100% orthodox textual Islam...I'll try to consult some non-Qur'anic literature as soon as possible, but until then, we can assume that my provisional conclusion is: unrelated men and women chatting in public is not haraam.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Surely they have more pressing issues than the potential that people might fuck without approval.

Religion poisons everything.

[la lucha sigue]

From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?

Men and women are prohibited from fucking in public in western countries, but I doubt people on this forum are aghast at that interference in their private lives.

I don't really think that this is a story worthy of much attention. Just the usual righteous indignation about social values in other cultures (or perhaps against all culture) that itself is part of the reason why socialism is not supported by any significant section of the Somali people.

The majority of the people in Somalia would welcome Sharia law if it brought an end to the instability of the country, which it did briefly before the UIC were overthrown.

While socialists should never support any law based on religion as the ultimate aim, I think we have to recognise that sharia law in these circumstances is an improvement in the conditions of the Somali people. The need of the Somali people for peace and stability is much more significant than the need of the Somali people to hold hands in public.

[Bethechange]

Al-Shabab appears to be going the same way as the Taliban back when they held power-stoning women who appeared uncovered outside their homes, preventing them from having jobs, attempting to ban television in Afghanistan, etc, etc.


Men and women are prohibited from fucking in public in western countries, but I doubt people on this forum are aghast at that interference in their private lives.

Um...since when is having sex like a handshake?


I don't really think that this is a story worthy of much attention. Just the usual righteous indignation about social values in other cultures (or perhaps against all culture) that itself is part of the reason why socialism is not supported by any significant section of the Somali people.

Does this mean we're not allowed to criticize social values, whether in Somalia or elsewhere? Perhaps more Somalis would support socialism if they saw socialists standing up for those persecuted by theocrats.


The majority of the people in Somalia would welcome Sharia law if it brought an end to the instability of the country, which it did briefly before the UIC were overthrown.

Has someone polled the Somali people over what they would like? I don't think so. Also, the UIC only ever had power in Mogadishu and nearby, certainly not the whole land.


While socialists should never support any law based on religion as the ultimate aim, I think we have to recognise that sharia law in these circumstances is an improvement in the conditions of the Somali people. The need of the Somali people for peace and stability is much more significant than the need of the Somali people to hold hands in public.

Problem: when you support an institution "temporarily" it has a nasty habit of getting entrenched rather "permanently." Sharia law, if seriously put into practice, will result in many Somalis being killed, maimed, tortured and imprisoned, especially women. The answer to many small pockets of tribal warlords' despotism is hardly a vicious national theocracy. Such a "cure" is likely worse than the disease. It is far more than the right to hold hands in public. How about the right to have sex in private with whom one likes, to speak about religion, take drugs or drink alcohol, dress how you would (for women), etc. If we support means (sharia law) to the ends (peace, stability) that bring along terror and theocratic despotism, is that an improvement?

[hatzel]

While socialists should never support any law based on religion as the ultimate aim

I'll just fix that one for you:


While socialists should never support the top-down enforcement of any law based on religion on an unwilling populace as the ultimate aim

...or...


While socialists should never support any law as the ultimate aim

Should the masses themselves desire to be subject to a particular religious legal system, failure to support this would be overly authoritarian, as it would involve us making decisions on behalf of the populace, based on our own ideas of what desires they are and are not permitted to have. Thus, if we continue to support the idea of laws, we must support whatever form the populace wants these to take, including laws based on religion. The only legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-authoritarian way to fail to support the bottom-up implementation of any popular-supported law based on religion is to withhold support for implementation of all laws of any kind...my two cents...

[la lucha sigue]

Um...since when is having sex like a handshake?

The reason for the banning of one or the other lies in the same rationale, which is in the end a particular moralistic value judgment on intimate relations between the sexes.


Does this mean we're not allowed to criticize social values, whether in Somalia or elsewhere? Perhaps more Somalis would support socialism if they saw socialists standing up for those persecuted by theocrats.

I'm not saying we're not allowed to criticise it, but the criticism has to be placed in context.


Has someone polled the Somali people over what they would like? I don't think so. Also, the UIC only ever had power in Mogadishu and nearby, certainly not the whole land.

The UIC had control of most of the country, even if it wasn't total. But they didn't just have control like the UN backed government have control, ie at the end of a gun, they had popular support. There may not have been polls, but even the US admit that this was the case.


Problem: when you support an institution "temporarily" it has a nasty habit of getting entrenched "ultimately."

Fair enough point.


Sharia law, if seriously put in practice, will result in many Somalis being killed, maimed, tortured and imprisoned. The answer to many small pockets of tribal warlords' despotism is hardly a vicious national theocracy. Such a cure is likely worse than the disease. It is far more than the right to hold hands in public. How about the right to have sex in private with whom one likes, to speak about religion, take drugs or drink alcohol, dress how you would (for women), and so forth.

I don't advocate Sharia law as an ultimate goal. I'm not happy to see it implemented at all, but recognise that it is something that has arisen (and not entirely imposed) as a result of the conditions of war and instability that exist.


If we support means (sharia law) to the ends (peace, stability) that bring along terror and theocratic despotism, is that an improvement?

Depending on the level of "terror" or "despotism", then yes it is an improvement. Do we need to be on the watch for an increase in terror and despotism, of course we do. But being flogged for holding hands with someone of the opposite sex (which is a serious socially unacceptable thing in Somalia) is certainly an improvement on being kidnapped and forced into extremely violent manual or sexual slavery or facing constant fear of being killed in crossfire or having all your property periodically looted by the next band of warlords.

[Bethechange]

The reason for the banning of one or the other lies in the same rationale, which is in the end a particular moralistic value judgment on intimate relations between the sexes.

I realize that, which is precisely my point. You're saying an ideology which equates holding hands with having public sex should be backed in the name of "order."


I'm not saying we're not allowed to criticise it, but the criticism has to be placed in context.

In the context of accepting Sharia law? You criticize something while letting it be set up?


The UIC had control of most of the country, even if it wasn't total. But they didn't just have control like the UN backed government have control, ie at the end of a gun, they had popular support. There may not have been polls, but even the US admit that this was the case.

Fascists received popular support. The Taliban is the most relevant example, with a similarity to Al-Shabab. With support for similar reasons. Also, no central government in Somalia's history ever had real control of the entire country. Only in the south, which now has a government in name only, warlords fighting each other, and Al-Shabab.


Fair enough point.

Ok, but:


I don't advocate Sharia law as an ultimate goal. I'm not happy to see it implemented at all, but recognise that it is something that has arisen (and not entirely imposed) as a result of the conditions of war and instability that exist.

Yes, I realize that's why it arose. That doesn't mean we should accept them. I reiterate my note about how something temporary becomes permanent, which you've agreed above.


Depending on the level of "terror" or "despotism", then yes it is an improvement. Do we need to be on the watch for an increase in terror and despotism, of course we do. But being flogged for holding hands with someone of the opposite sex (which is a serious socially unacceptable thing in Somalia) is certainly an improvement on being kidnapped and forced into extremely violent manual or sexual slavery or facing constant fear of being killed in crossfire or having all your property periodically looted by the next band of warlords.

An improvement? I'd say it's merely a change in form. You do realize that raped women have been stoned to death? I'm guessing they're not happy with the institutionalization of such terror and despotism. A lot of people would still live in constant fear, just of their "protectors"...

Somalia also has a very ancient customary law which predates Islam called the Xeer, which is far less harsh than Sharia as I understand. The widespread observance and enforcement of Xeer has meant that northern Somalia is largely untouched by the southern conflicts, with many improvements since Barre fell in 1991. If all of Somalia were follow this, order could occur. There is also the fact that Somalia is a clan society, in which neither Western-style bourgeois democracy or Islamic theocracy is likely to remain, whether or not some of the population support them. More information on Wikipedia.

[psgchisolm]

From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?
Their ak-47s. Their just trying to enforce their control over the people so that they won't have any freedoms so if the time comes and they can do whatever they want without anyone speaking out.

[Lt. Ferret]

Men and women are prohibited from fucking in public in western countries, but I doubt people on this forum are aghast at that interference in their private lives.

I don't really think that this is a story worthy of much attention. Just the usual righteous indignation about social values in other cultures (or perhaps against all culture) that itself is part of the reason why socialism is not supported by any significant section of the Somali people.

The majority of the people in Somalia would welcome Sharia law if it brought an end to the instability of the country, which it did briefly before the UIC were overthrown.

While socialists should never support any law based on religion as the ultimate aim, I think we have to recognise that sharia law in these circumstances is an improvement in the conditions of the Somali people. The need of the Somali people for peace and stability is much more significant than the need of the Somali people to hold hands in public.



you would justify and praise any amount of oppression as long as its non-western or anti-imperialist.

[28350]

What the fuck?
Are they afraid of cooties or something?
If this wasn't so terrible it might be funny.

[Crimson Commissar]

From where the hell do they draw justifications for this bullshit?
From religion, of course..

[Dimentio]

I haven't found any references in the Qur'an explicitly calling for anything like this level of stringency, and I've been frantically flipping through my copy since I posted this (what, it's difficult finding verses related to very specific issues, I'll have you know! :crying:)...I'll report back with my findings as and when they come...so far, the only stuff I could find would suggest limiting interaction between men and women in private, but as they don't even want them chatting in public...until I find some solid evidence on the contrary, I'm going to assume that these is slightly over the top 'preventative' measures, even when viewed from the perspective of 100% orthodox textual Islam...I'll try to consult some non-Qur'anic literature as soon as possible, but until then, we can assume that my provisional conclusion is: unrelated men and women chatting in public is not haraam.

Shar'iah is not based on the Holy Quran delivered by Bismillah God's Messenger Muhammad (PBUH), but by the holy Hadiths.