While the world's political attention has been focused on Iraq for the past few weeks, a quiet revolution of sorts has been happening in Somalia, the east African state without a functioning government since the 30 year reign of Mohammad Siad Barre ended in 1991. Since then, a handful of warlords have presided over anarchy and lawlessness, famously drawing in the US for its disastrous "Black Hawk Down" battle with Mohammad Farah Aideed in 1993. Poverty, piracy, and a strangely efficient telecoms industry ensued. This week, the Islamic Courts Union, a network of Somalian sharia courts with a growing military, captured Jowhar, a Mogadishu suburb that represented the last stand for the warlords. The ICU had succeeded in part by transcending clan loyalties through religion. With it came the lions share of the country's military hardware and effective control of Somalia by a single organisation for the first time in 15 years. The warlords themselves had seen the ICU coming over the past few years, forming The Alliance for Peace and Counter-Terrorism, a group tailor made for seeking (and receiving) covert CIA monetary assistance (if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em). This was no minor annoyance to the UN recognised fledgling Somali government (which includes Aideed's US-educated son), watching helplessly from the town of Baidoa, 90 miles from Mogadishu. Now, the US has called for a public international meeting to discuss the matter, fearing the ICU could turn Sufi-oriented Somalia into another Afghanistan. Claims have been made that Saudi-style public executions have been held and areas under ICU control harbour suspects from the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the Mombassa hotel bombing in 2002. But other analysts point out that the ICU is no Taliban. "Somalis in general show little interest in jihadi Islamism; most are deeply opposed," says a report by the International Crisis Group. "The most remarkable feature is that Islamist militancy has not become more firmly rooted in what should, by most conventional assessments, be fertile ground." Others liken the public mood to the election of Hamas in Palestine (for anti-Fatah corruption reasons) by a population that would likely approve a referendum for a two-state solution. Whatever the eventual outcome, the ascendance of the ICU is an embarrassment to the US, which still seems to prefer perpetuating a sense that Somalis prefer exporting jihadi violence to restoring order after over a decade of anarchy perpetuated by the CIA backed warlords. "It's a turning point for Somalia," said a businessman in Marka, south of Mogadishu. "We just don't know yet which way our country will turn."

> Will its Islamically oriented rulers lean toward Taliban-style governance or relative peace?

It is interesting that these two options are presented as mutually exclusive.

> But other analysts point out that the ICU is no Taliban. "Somalis in general show little interest in jihadi Islamism; most are deeply opposed," says a report by the International Crisis Group.

Ever seen pictures of women in Afganistan before the Soviet invasion? They were quite western in their clothing getting higher level educations. After the fundies took power...back to the stone age.

>> Ever seen pictures of women in
Afganistan before the Soviet invasion? They were quite western in their clothing getting higher level educations. After the fundies took power...back to the stone age. <<

I assume you are talking about the "western" communists before the "fundies took power".

>I assume you are talking about the "western" communists before the "fundies took power".

I can't find the photos I was thinking of online, so I can't confirm whether or not they were communists. But a better example than the one I brought up is this link with a photo of Afghan women pre-taliban:

http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

Somali women sure have a lot of good times in their future.

>>They were quite western in their clothing getting higher level educations <<

I think the Afghan women had a better deal under the Taliban then they do now or did before the Taliban came along. One has to keep the situation under perspective. These places are the badlands, where you cannot run off to your local feminist media outlet as soon as someone pinches your bum at the local shopping mall. They do not have electricity at night and nor do they have shopping malls.

Its kind of like the old Western world. If you study the history of those times, you find the women in remarkably similar situations as the current Afghan and Somali women. It really has nothing to do with Afghanistan, or Somalia, or West or East, Muslim or Christian.

This so called "higher level educations" and "western clothings" are all luxury items that societies can afford for their women in times of affluence and peace. Take those away, and compare across the board, you would probably wish to be an Afghan woman.

Yes, I think it is more relevant to compare the situation of Afghan women to say, women in rural China, or rural South Africa, maybe parts of Central America and so on and so forth.

And what you find there is women living lives of harsh labor, prostitution, aids infection and so on and so forth. They are not getting any more education than were women under Taliban.

So it is a subjective criteria whether being consigned to home is better than being subjected to all these other ills. I cannot defend what the Taliban did, I was not there, but I certainly see media and civilizational scapegoating against Taliban, who chose to follow a certain set of principles in their governance. And principles as we all know are a major hindrance to the smooth flow of goods and labor and raw material from East to West.

Interesting articles:

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It:
http://www.mises.org/story/2066

Doing God's Work:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard80.html
(a bit of history starting with fulfilling the promise of the five-pointed star of the new Somali flag: to incorporate a Greater Somalia uniting all five groups of ethnic Somalis)

>> Will its Islamically oriented rulers lean toward Taliban-style governance or relative peace?

will the secular oriented rulers lean toward communism or relatively peaceful capitalism? - talk about subjective and completely arbitrary reporting - we expect more from you Zahed

>> Somali women sure have a lot of good times in their future

What a genius. All women have to do is wear skirts, undermine the basic functioning of their society and we'll all be magically flung into the great western affluence and culture .. what muslims in Somalia and Afghanistan really need is a great sexual revolution .. are you for real?

it used to be preachers who softened nations before greedy sycophants raided/raped their cultures .. now its feminists and secularists .. if bibles dont fill them, maybe cosmo mags will?

Leave the baggage .. we don't want it!!

Also - americans calling for meetings at the UN .. bad thinds will happen. No wonder the only muslim nation that can successfully manipulate the US is fledgling post-colonial and very schizo Pakistan. Any other nation with the slightest sense of decorum gets sucked into the perpetual eat or be eaten political will of the US. Now that Somalis can settle themselves, trust the US to use the UN to undermine any hope of freedom from capitalistic servitude.

>What a genius. All women have to do is wear skirts, undermine the basic functioning of their society and we'll all be magically flung into the great western affluence and culture .. what muslims in Somalia and Afghanistan really need is a great sexual revolution .. are you for real?

Well...in fundamentalist Muslim countries, women have no freedom, so any additional freedom is probably a good thing.

>No wonder the only muslim nation that can successfully manipulate the US is fledgling post-colonial and very schizo Pakistan.

Don't forget about Saudi Arabia. With all that oil springing up through their toes, the Arabian princes have PLENTY of influence with the US.

>Now that Somalis can settle themselves, trust the US to use the UN to undermine any hope of freedom from capitalistic servitude.

Can you have freedom from freedom? Being free to not have to make your own decisions is not free. Being free to not be able to take care of yourself is not free.

>>Well...in fundamentalist Muslim countries, women have no freedom, so any additional freedom is probably a good thing.
<<

So now you're the expert on Muslim countries are you? Whaen was the last time you were in one?

>>Don't forget about Saudi Arabia. With all that oil springing up through their toes, the Arabian princes have PLENTY of influence with the US.<<

Ofcourse they do, thats why Israel gets billions of dollars in economic and military grants. Part of the loot is then funneled back into the pockets of the crooks who rubber stamped the "aid" in the first place. Yep...them Saudi sure are an influencial bunch.

>>Can you have freedom from freedom? Being free to not have to make your own decisions is not free. Being free to not be able to take care of yourself is not free.<<

huh? Lost in your miasma of confusion and contradiction.

>So now you're the expert on Muslim countries are you? Whaen was the last time you were in one?

I've never been to the moon but I know there are craters there.

>Ofcourse they do, thats why Israel gets billions of dollars in economic and military grants. Part of the loot is then funneled back into the pockets of the crooks who rubber stamped the "aid" in the first place. Yep...them Saudi sure are an influencial bunch.

And Saudi Arabia gets billions for its black gold. Were you agreeing with me?

>>>Can you have freedom from freedom? Being free to not have to make your own decisions is not free. Being free to not be able to take care of yourself is not free.<<

>huh? Lost in your miasma of confusion and contradiction.

I was just trying to clear up what freedom isn't. BTW...I must commend you on your mature reply with ZERO name calling. Keep it up!

>>I've never been to the moon but I know there are craters there.<<

Pathetic. We're not talking about the moon are we? Last time I checked it was uninhabited. You're making a distinct statement about Muslim countries and its populace without ever having set foot in one. Dishonest and ignorant, what a combo.

>>And Saudi Arabia gets billions for its black gold. Were you agreeing with me?<<

No, I wasnt agreeing with you at all. Hyping up Saudi Arabia and its "influence" (what? we actually have to pay for that oil?!)while downplaying the fact that Israel owns virtually every member of congress.

>>BTW...I must commend you on your mature reply with ZERO name calling. Keep it up!<<

The night is still young. How about you make a factual statement for once and I wont call you the ignorant hack that you are. Oops too late.

>Pathetic. We're not talking about the moon are we? Last time I checked it was uninhabited. You're making a distinct statement about Muslim countries and its populace without ever having set foot in one. Dishonest and ignorant, what a combo.

Let me first point out that I said fundamentalist muslim countries. Try not to twist my words into the condemnation of modern muslim values. I must admit that I am ignorant to many things. However, I needn't go to a country to know (through evidence based on written, visual and oral reporting) things about it. I don't need to go to Somalia to know that there is a war there. I don't need to go to a radical muslim country to know that women get crapped on, either.

IN which country are women NOT allowed to drive a car?
In which country are women forbidden to vote or hold office(there are several, but only 1 in which men CAN and women CAN'T)
In which country do women need the written permission of their husbands to travel?

>>>>BTW...I must commend you on your mature reply with ZERO name calling. Keep it up!<<

FC, we all know the futility of teaching an old dog new tricks... thus, ignoring the dog's barking is one of the few positive actions one can take.

>>fundamentalist muslim countries<<
>>modern muslim values<<
>>radical muslim country<<

More expidient bogus fuzzy buzz words......

>>through evidence based on written, visual and oral reporting<<

FOX news and the Cartoon network. Your knowledge base is nil and it shows.


>>IN which country are women NOT allowed to drive a car?<<

What do you care? Shouldnt you be more concerned that your own government can check which books you've been reading under the draconian Patriot Act? Oh no....you actually expect me to believe that you are concerned about woman not being able to drive a car thousands of miles away.

>>In which country are women forbidden to vote or hold office(there are several, but only 1 in which men CAN and women CAN'T)<<

Men can vote in municipal elections(whatever that means in US client state). Maybe they ought to get those rigged diebold machines from the US. Since you wrote the book on high tech electronic voter fraud.

>>In which country do women need the written permission of their husbands to travel?<<

So? Sounds like common sense to me. What makes you think this is exclusive to Saudi Arabia only? So getting back to talk of foreign influence....who owns your congressman?

>>FC, we all know the futility of teaching an old dog new tricks... thus, ignoring the dog's barking is one of the few positive actions one can take.<<

Dont call yourself a dog, spot. I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that is your natural voice.

>>In which country do women need the written permission of their husbands to travel?<<

I dono, but frankly a wife asking her husbands permission to travel is not exactly a "freedom" issue. It is about good sense and good family values.

Islam is about finding peace and contentment in all spheres of life. And certainly, husband and wife have to take measures as a family to protect each others chastity and prevent each other from falling into situations that can lead to jealousy, suspicion and adultery.

I mean in some cases, death penalty is the punishment for adultery, which is a very very serious matter. Taking some ones life as a collective society is a very serious matter. And it would be injust that lots and lots of control mechanisms were not built into daily life to prevent somone falling into a situation where they end up being hanged in the public square.

And as such, a wife seeking permission of the husband is one of the many beautiful examples of such controls that exist in Islamic life. It is a privelege and an honor for a wife to seek her husband's permission before traveling. Some good women, even keep their husbands updated on their movement about town on a daily basis, as annoying as that may be day-in day-out, more so if the husband really does not care that much about his wife's whereabouts. It is called maturity.

Which may come as some kind of a shock to the Western ideal, wherey asking your wife to sleep with your business partner in exchange for a million dollars is a popular and runaway betseller movie theme.

It is possible Saudi society takes the idea of such "permission" to some extreme, I dont know much about Saudi Arabia, so I cannot defend what they do, but certainly the concept itself is very much part of the Islamic culture. And has nothing to do with "freedom of women".

>>It is called maturity.

Not in my eyes; children are the ones who ask permission to go somewhere. Thus, if adult women have to beg permission and can be denied it, then they are treated the same as children. Children by definition are immature, thus women are being treated like children and considered immature. Why, then don't men get permission from thier wives and report thier every moves since they also can be executed for adultery?! Why is it so one-wayed? That right there is the core of the problem.

Well, because the way nature has made human beings, men tend to go out to work and women tend to stay at home and raise children and maintain the house. Its called division of labor ;---)

As a result, it is only natural that men will more likely be prone to jealousy and suspicion when their wives are travelling out in public in the sphere of men. Than a woman would be regarding a man out among other men. So makes sense to me that a woman "has to report" about her travels more so then men. Nobody is saying a man cannot reciprocate and inform his wife where he is late at night, many men do.

And one has to realize also that the Islamic system of things is about everyone sacrificing on private pleasures for the greater public good. No one argues the fact that 75% of those who drink and gamble and fornicate, do so within reasonable limits and do not exceed to the point that they hurt others. Yet Islam does not allow these 75% folks the pleasure of a such vices.

And part of the reason is that those who are not able to stay within the bounds (i.e. ARE IMMATURE), the pain and suffering they cause is not worth the pleasure others gain (i.e. MATURE types like OmarG) for the community at large. Atleast that is how i see it.

To me atleast, as an immature person, that is what is most beautiful about Islam, the maturity it provides to people. By following such dictates as reporting to ones husband on ones movement and many more important behavioral patterns, a person can live a fruitful healthy life within a community and not be the cause and source of fitna, unhappiness, infighting, hatred and so on and so forth due to their own inherent immaturity.

And certainly, if I was a jurist, I would make it incumbent for Muslims living in promiscuous Western societies, to have husbands ask permission of their wives when travelling for non-work related purposes.

One has to look at all things Islamic within a wholistic perspective. Given the Western social model of promiscuity, open door sexuality and women in the workplace, it is hardly surprising that 'wives having to get permission of husbands to go out' seems rather unfair and oppressive.

The solution is not to do away with this most beautiful practice, but to make amends so that fairness is restored in the face of changing environments.