The Niqab needs to be banned
- Thread starter thisthatone
- Start date
I live in Somalia you stupid moron.
Horrendous take....one for the history books.
Women can choose to wear niqab or hijab....as long as they're wearing either one.
Stay out of dumar business man
Im_✨
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Their being forced to wear that also Somali women have always had independence, and ran the household. Now they are forced indoors like the Taliban we as Somalis don’t want this terrorist culture it is unsomali,sick, and backwards from the 5th century. I love how you Somali men in the west are supporting this from the west while having all your freedoms.
This is what Somali women wore and how important they were in Somali households they were leaders now you want to regulate them indoors while they cover their face?
Niqab: Somali police seize hundreds of veils in Kismayo amid security fears
Security forces in Somalia's Jubaland state are waging a "fight" against the niqab, a police boss says.
www.bbc.com
Niqab: Somali police seize hundreds of veils in Kismayo amid security fears
Security forces in Somalia's Jubaland state are waging a "fight" against the niqab, a police boss says.
www.bbc.com
I’m so proud of our country for getting rid of this extremism imagine they used this to kill 32 people the other day. This practice is unsomali it takes Somali women to the 5th century.
The alchemist
VIP
The same ones who want to ban the niqab want to de-emphasize, criminalize, or ban the hijab. We know this through very firm historical evidence, look at early 1900s Albania with its attempt to secularize.
The issue with terrorism is, terrrorism and its underlying ideology through clear material political aspirations constructing deviant extreme Islamic prescriptions for volatile solutions resorting to unjust methodologies, not the niqab. Most terrorists are males who wear normal clothes. Are we going to ban clothes that are casually worn by everyday men? The argument does not follow. Neither is it a sincere attempt to fix the terrorist problem.
The Sufi orders did not enter the Somali peninsula until the late-19th century. That means for the majority of Islamic history among Somalis, Somalis were just Shafi'ite Muslims who did not follow any Sufi orders. The Sufi movements were registered to become dynamically competitive with constant contact with the Arabian peninsula or Mesopotamia (they were not opposed to the ideas of the Arabs even then; anything to the contrary is a historically inaccurate assertion), informed by those sources and vied for influence in the Somali lands.
Now, I am going to be historically accurate here. Somalis before Sufism had cultural practices that we now consider unIslamic due to ignorance and traditional stubbornness and one can say that Sufis became popular because they made room for incorporating those elements. For example, saint veneration was a pre-Sufi practice that Sufis came and said, "Yeah, that is something we do too in our ways so you can do that it is halal." That is why Somalis who know better today view Sufi influence as enabling those ignorant practices and throw it in the same light. This does not mean Somalis were half Muslims or some kind. No, they were Muslims but they clearly kept deviant cultural practices out of clear-cut ignorance or cultural pride. The far majority of Muslims ended those practices due to interacting more with the Ummah and moved the practices out of the public consciousness, not because of Wahabi control. My family is not "Wahabi" and we view that stuff as ignorant. Most Somalis are like my family, not some terrorist-sympathizing notion that you secular people try to push. Somalis are not either terrorists, Wahabi, or Sufi. Most are really orthodox and against terrorism but reject Sufism and the old practices. This nuance has been really left out by people with agendas on all fronts. Although, I must say that Salafism is misunderstood or dishonestly portrayed by secularists.
But we can even go deeper to have a historical understanding, beside the cultural aspects that Somalis kept, we were always religiously orthodox in our ways. In fact, the thing about keeping certain cultural practices shows our tendency to be traditional, and in the same way, Somalis were very prone to accept the orthodox aspects of Islam from the get-go. And in fact, the Sufis who came were not liberal people either; they came to mostly reaffirm the tendencies on the ground as I said earlier.
Secularism, as it was, came through state dictatorial force. Siyad Barres regime to the contradictions of people's will (and this especially includes the Sufi sheiks), forced "scientific socialism" propaganda, and educational and reform imposition to appease the international socialists to gain support and favor from the Cubans that secretly wanted to merge Ethiopia and Somalia into one socialist revolution and Soviets. The secularism was not a natural pivot for Somalis. It's very ironic how you sit here and try to find a methodology to ban the niqab through state coercion through the notion of security the same way secularism was shoved down people's throats against their will and ideological conditioning. It has always been your way, not the Somali way.
Socialism in its true form was social engineering based on domestic centralized state interests for foreign leverage against the disposition of the people. This was an effort to construct Somalis based on the appeasement of foreigners for their friendships. So no, this notion you're trying to put forth where Somalis were naturally loose with religious conviction in social climate is not true. Somalis in the urban south were more liberal because of state enforcement, nothing that grew from the ground.
People don't understand this, the socialists started by wanting an aggressive progressive approach to the road toward socialism because they saw religious forces as nothing more than a competing faction, an obstacle to national liberation. Socialism in their eyes, and which is endemically true, cannot be formed from a religious Islamic people because its core tenets are atheistically materialist in its worldview. The Soviets followed the Leninist perceptions of foreign policy and Lenin said this about religion:
But the Soviets who had aspirations for direct tutelage and a need for outcompeting US-Western influence on the region coupled with a regional strategic gain after the presence of Soviets were expelled from Egypt, proved too difficult irrespective of Barre's personal regime interests. The demographic, political-tribal, and religious character, moreover the sociopolitical profile of the Somali, proved too intricate and costly without disruptions of several reactionary interest forces if they callously moved about. Somalis' practicality, the ideological pan-Somali agendas in the early 70s, the heavy bureaucracy of the political apparatus (that was not democratic in nature), and the ethnic natural suspicion of European-descended foreigners proved to be an issue for the Soviets interests. The gains were not enough for the risk and costs so they sided with Ethiopia, similar to Cuba which was more ideologically in line with Ethiopia's vision -- even sympathetic to the notion of absorbing Eritrea and Somalia under the guise of Socialist revolution.
Either way, I can write a whole lot more to describe how Somaia became more secular in the decades before 1991, all due to state engineering on quite hands-on guidance by foreign powers, plus the religious characterization stated by you was never real from an endemic perspective with regards to the Sufi, neither were Islamic history Sufi dominated either, arriving quite late during the late 19th century in minor form but with more presence during the 20th century.
The issue with terrorism is, terrrorism and its underlying ideology through clear material political aspirations constructing deviant extreme Islamic prescriptions for volatile solutions resorting to unjust methodologies, not the niqab. Most terrorists are males who wear normal clothes. Are we going to ban clothes that are casually worn by everyday men? The argument does not follow. Neither is it a sincere attempt to fix the terrorist problem.
This is nonsensical. Sufis were not some "hippies" in the past, many people were Sufis but many of those Sufis followed the same strict form of Islam as what you see today, adding their unique Sufi aspects that were not tantamount to lax religious convictions or liberalism. That is revisionism. The ones who were marginalized by Siyad Barre were Sufis who fled to Arabia for persecution because they were against secularization. The stooge who was aiding Siyad in snitching them out was also a Sufi but that was more influenced by personal and state power favoritism gains but also emblematic of the lack of principles within Sufiism in how it can be bent from almost new age-like mysticism to secularist promoting as you saw in Albania all the way to what quite looks like very hardline fundamentalist rigidity. Sufism was never one thing but it was often the tool of the state because the Sufis were malleable in their ways, i.e., they had a propensity for innovation.
The Sufi orders did not enter the Somali peninsula until the late-19th century. That means for the majority of Islamic history among Somalis, Somalis were just Shafi'ite Muslims who did not follow any Sufi orders. The Sufi movements were registered to become dynamically competitive with constant contact with the Arabian peninsula or Mesopotamia (they were not opposed to the ideas of the Arabs even then; anything to the contrary is a historically inaccurate assertion), informed by those sources and vied for influence in the Somali lands.
Now, I am going to be historically accurate here. Somalis before Sufism had cultural practices that we now consider unIslamic due to ignorance and traditional stubbornness and one can say that Sufis became popular because they made room for incorporating those elements. For example, saint veneration was a pre-Sufi practice that Sufis came and said, "Yeah, that is something we do too in our ways so you can do that it is halal." That is why Somalis who know better today view Sufi influence as enabling those ignorant practices and throw it in the same light. This does not mean Somalis were half Muslims or some kind. No, they were Muslims but they clearly kept deviant cultural practices out of clear-cut ignorance or cultural pride. The far majority of Muslims ended those practices due to interacting more with the Ummah and moved the practices out of the public consciousness, not because of Wahabi control. My family is not "Wahabi" and we view that stuff as ignorant. Most Somalis are like my family, not some terrorist-sympathizing notion that you secular people try to push. Somalis are not either terrorists, Wahabi, or Sufi. Most are really orthodox and against terrorism but reject Sufism and the old practices. This nuance has been really left out by people with agendas on all fronts. Although, I must say that Salafism is misunderstood or dishonestly portrayed by secularists.
But we can even go deeper to have a historical understanding, beside the cultural aspects that Somalis kept, we were always religiously orthodox in our ways. In fact, the thing about keeping certain cultural practices shows our tendency to be traditional, and in the same way, Somalis were very prone to accept the orthodox aspects of Islam from the get-go. And in fact, the Sufis who came were not liberal people either; they came to mostly reaffirm the tendencies on the ground as I said earlier.
Secularism, as it was, came through state dictatorial force. Siyad Barres regime to the contradictions of people's will (and this especially includes the Sufi sheiks), forced "scientific socialism" propaganda, and educational and reform imposition to appease the international socialists to gain support and favor from the Cubans that secretly wanted to merge Ethiopia and Somalia into one socialist revolution and Soviets. The secularism was not a natural pivot for Somalis. It's very ironic how you sit here and try to find a methodology to ban the niqab through state coercion through the notion of security the same way secularism was shoved down people's throats against their will and ideological conditioning. It has always been your way, not the Somali way.
Socialism in its true form was social engineering based on domestic centralized state interests for foreign leverage against the disposition of the people. This was an effort to construct Somalis based on the appeasement of foreigners for their friendships. So no, this notion you're trying to put forth where Somalis were naturally loose with religious conviction in social climate is not true. Somalis in the urban south were more liberal because of state enforcement, nothing that grew from the ground.
People don't understand this, the socialists started by wanting an aggressive progressive approach to the road toward socialism because they saw religious forces as nothing more than a competing faction, an obstacle to national liberation. Socialism in their eyes, and which is endemically true, cannot be formed from a religious Islamic people because its core tenets are atheistically materialist in its worldview. The Soviets followed the Leninist perceptions of foreign policy and Lenin said this about religion:
But the Soviets who had aspirations for direct tutelage and a need for outcompeting US-Western influence on the region coupled with a regional strategic gain after the presence of Soviets were expelled from Egypt, proved too difficult irrespective of Barre's personal regime interests. The demographic, political-tribal, and religious character, moreover the sociopolitical profile of the Somali, proved too intricate and costly without disruptions of several reactionary interest forces if they callously moved about. Somalis' practicality, the ideological pan-Somali agendas in the early 70s, the heavy bureaucracy of the political apparatus (that was not democratic in nature), and the ethnic natural suspicion of European-descended foreigners proved to be an issue for the Soviets interests. The gains were not enough for the risk and costs so they sided with Ethiopia, similar to Cuba which was more ideologically in line with Ethiopia's vision -- even sympathetic to the notion of absorbing Eritrea and Somalia under the guise of Socialist revolution.
Either way, I can write a whole lot more to describe how Somaia became more secular in the decades before 1991, all due to state engineering on quite hands-on guidance by foreign powers, plus the religious characterization stated by you was never real from an endemic perspective with regards to the Sufi, neither were Islamic history Sufi dominated either, arriving quite late during the late 19th century in minor form but with more presence during the 20th century.
If someone was wearing a thawb and fitted a bomb underneath their garments, are we gonna ban that too?
The reality is that if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them, no amount of security can prevent that. Best case scenario is avoiding civilian casualties but having security/police casualties.
The only thing you can do is destroy any terror networks and their abilities to obtain arms and financing.
These conversations about clothing is pedantic and only seeks to divide our population further, not unite it.
The reality is that if someone wants to blow themselves up and take other people with them, no amount of security can prevent that. Best case scenario is avoiding civilian casualties but having security/police casualties.
The only thing you can do is destroy any terror networks and their abilities to obtain arms and financing.
These conversations about clothing is pedantic and only seeks to divide our population further, not unite it.
Internet Nomad
✪𝕲𝖔𝖓𝖊 ≋4≋ 𝕾𝖚𝖒𝖒𝖊𝖗✪
Mashallah 10/10 effort post
Internet Nomad
✪𝕲𝖔𝖓𝖊 ≋4≋ 𝕾𝖚𝖒𝖒𝖊𝖗✪
You say this but your also a western trying to impact somali people back home so you have no ground to stand on.
just imagining it on her 
Trending
-
Black Americans go to Palestine to help and get called racial slurs 💀- Started by Dibleyy
- Replies: 122
-
-
