Hey cats, where are my bongos?
Islamists want Qur’an-led govt — Islamic fundamentalism might have a certain universal appeal in parts of Africa. Perhaps so much so that Africa could become united under Islamic rule. Is that a possibility? Who’s to stop this if it becomes a trend? Mugabe?
The guy calling the shots,Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, sports a creepy jazzman goatee that is variously bleached blonde or dyed red. Seems like an adornment that is punishable by stoning, if you ask me. He’s obviously not a Salafist. He’ll eventually be ousted to be replaced by someone even more conservative.
Nairobi – The radical new leader of Somalia’s Islamic militia said he would only support a government based on the Qur’an, offering little hope that the cleric the United States accused of collaborating with al-Qaeda would bring moderate rule to his chaotic Horn of Africa nation.
Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys said: “Somalia is a Muslim nation and its people are also Muslim, 100%. Therefore, any government we agree on would be based on the holy Qur’an and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad.”
The militia controlled the capital and much of the rest of southern Somalia.
Aweys against Western-style democracy
Aweys’s stance, a harder line than that taken by his predecessor, could steer the country toward a collision with the US and the United Nations.
The militia’s previous leader, a relatively moderate cleric, had been reaching out to the West and Somalia’s largely powerless UN-backed government in recent weeks.
The 71-year-old Aweys, speaking from his home in central Somalia, condemned any attempts to install a Western-style democracy and said he was under no obligation to abide by the wishes of the West.
installing a Sharia government in Ethiopia would be difficult, given that the country is about half Christian and Animist.
That applies to most of the continent, Doug. Actually, some countries, such as Nigeria, have had relatively strife despite a Muslim minority. The West could actually learn from Africa in that regard.
Considering the other option in Somalia, the completely corrupt warloads, I understand why people are turning to the clerics.
It’s also a wee bit disingenuous to say his predecessor was “reaching out to the West”. Excepting the lapdog press West of Fox News, everyone in the world of journalism knew he was bought and paid for by whoever’s subtly fronting US taxdollar$ in Africa.
One of the reasons stiffs like Aweys found it easy to unite the opposition.
2. AFAIK, there have been some problems in Nigeria, with local governments trying to impose Sharia within their own bailiwicks. Any attempt to do so nationally would doubtlessly encounter fierce resistance & is a non-starter.
I think the idea of Africa being “united under Islamic rule” is profoundly unlikely. what does seem likely is a replay of the Taliban in Somalia, which is bad enough.
The man in the picture has the same sh#t eating grin as Alix 🙂
Why would you want to stop this?
Isn’t the ‘American Dream’ all about freedom and self-determination?
If these people freely determine that they prefer an Islamic clerical government to warlords supported by Western drug and diamond money, then why stop that?
This is exactly the sort of double standard that causes conflict. Sure, we want you to be free, as long as you are free under our form of government. If you want another form of government, well, that makes you an enemy.
6 If these people freely determine that they prefer an Islamic clerical government to warlords supported by Western drug and diamond money, then why stop that?
Sounds nice, except for the guy currently in charge of one armed camp stating:
“Somalia is a Muslim nation and its people are also Muslim, 100%….”
…doesn’t sound like he is offering “its people” much of a choice.
Mike,
So the world isn’t perfect. I know if I had a chioce between a war imposed on me by a corrupt warlord sponsored by a foreign power, and a leadership that wanted to impose an orderly prosperous society based on religious principles, I’d convert to Islam.
Of course Western governments don’t want that to be the equation. We want the chioce to be between a war imposed by the local warlord, or a war imposed by the largest military powers in the world.
Why? In the first case it is at least possible for people to be better off. In the second case, imposed by western (predominantly Christian) governments, everyone loses.
… and don’t give me BS about terrorism. All the terrorism we have suffered in recent years has been a direct response to these policies. The attacks of 2001 and since were nothing more or less than the backlash from the hundreds of thousands of people reduced to destitution and death.
The will and impetus came from these people abused by western policies, the training came from the CIA, the money came from investments in the US, Europe and Saudi Arabia.
NO country is 100% behind any religion. That is beyond improbable.
American style democracy isn’t for everyone, and occasionally it breaks down even here. Our national leadership is becoming a global joke and nobody likes us because of our evangelical frenzy concerning our unique way of doing things.
Should other people adopt ways that seem to us strange and freightening then we should leave them alone, and if their adoption of these ways are forced then that’s their destiny, to be worked out like we did ours in 1776.
And perhaps, just perhaps, we could use another 1776 episode here again.