Gender and Somalia's Judicial System

As most people know, Somalia has an overwhelmingly patriarchal culture. Polygamy is permitted, but polyandry is not. Under laws issued by the former government, female children could inherit property, but only half the amount to which their brothers were entitled. Similarly, according to the tradition of blood compensation, those found guilty in the death of a woman must pay only half as much to the aggrieved family as they would if the victim were a man. In addition, the traditional practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is universal throughout the country of Somalia. About 98% of women undergo this harmful procedure. Infibulation, the most dangerous form of FGM, is the most common practice in Somalia.

In addition, there is no national judicial system in Somalia. The judiciary in most regions relies on some combination of traditional and customary law, Shari’a law, the penal code of the pre-1991 Siad barre government, or some combination of the three. For example, in Bosasso and Afmedow, criminals are turned over to the families of their victims, which then exact blood compensation in keeping with local tradition. Shari’a courts continue to operate in several regions of the country, filling the vacuum created by the absence of normal government authority. Shari’a courts traditionally ruled in cases of civil and family law, but extended their jurisdiction to criminal proceedings in some regions beginning on 1994. In northwestern Somalia, the “Republic of Somaliland” adopted a new constitution, based on democratic principles, but continues to use the pre 1991 penal code. A United Nations report tells of a lack of trained judges and of legal documentation in Somaliland, which causes problems in the administration of justice. In Barder, courts apply a combination of Shari’a law and the former penal code. In south Mogadishu, court decisions are based solely on Shari’a Law. There are also five Islamic courts operating in Mogadishu, which generally refrain from administering the stricter Islamic punishments (i.e. amputation, etc.), but their militias implement many of these punishments anyway.

The U.S. Government's View

Last January, the United States Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations held a meeting regarding the role of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia, and how its presence was, essentially, a “ticking time bomb.” A major problem with Al Qaeda’s domination in Africa, particularly Somalia, is its intent to recruit American citizens to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States; these individuals include not only Americans who are of Arab or South Asian descent, but also individuals who converted to Islam in prison or elsewhere were “radicalized.” Some Americans were even arrested in Minnesota in early 2009 after returning from fighting alongside Al Shabab; since then, two dozen Americans of Somali origin have disappeared (in recent months) from St. Paul, Minnesota. From now on, fighting extremism world-wide will be an even bigger challenge for the United States, as terrorism is spreading throughout Asia and Africa.

The United States has, however, attempted to help a little bit. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Somali president, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, and praised him as “the best hope” for his country in many years. In addition, the Obama administration has provided money for weapons and helping the Djibouti military to train Somali troops. This would help to “bolster Sharif’s embattled government.”

These goals are, unfortunately, a tad too narrow compared to the immensity of the problem at hand. Senator Russ Feingold says that the US policy should be reconstructed and should be rooted in a “serious, high-level commitment to a sustainable and inclusive peace.” The United States needs to find a way to either evacuate endangered Somalis, or nullify the alliance of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab.

Al Qaeda and Al Shabab

One of Muhammad’s assertions was, “If you take up a domestic life, hold on to the tails of cattle, are content with farming, and thus abandon jihad, Allah will let humiliation lord over you until you return to your religion.” This statement raises two highly controversial questions that are still pertinent to jihad and to terrorism in general. The first regards suicide: Is it legitimate for a Muslim to kill him or herself for the sake of Islam? The second question is more relevant to my topic, as my topic focuses on terrorism’s effects on others: Is it legitimate to bombard the infidels if Muslims, women and children, are intermingled with them? According to Al Qaeda, it is clear that the answer to both of these questions is “yes.”

            These terrorist beliefs, coupled with the alliance of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab, have contributed to Somalia’s status as a “failed nation.” New punishments are created everyday for petty “crimes,” if you can even call them that, and the Somali public has been terrorized for years. Stoning, amputation, public humiliation, and whippings are not uncommon components of Al Shabab’s effort to return Somalia to a "seventh-century-style Islamic state."

            But the main problem with Somalia is that it doesn’t show any signs of getting better. Al Shabab and Al Qaeda grow increasingly closer every day, and organizing suicide bombings and attracting jihadists from around the world, even from the United States. Though most prominent and most “effective” in Somalia, Al Shabab is no longer restricted to this nation; it has been influencing Yemen, Kenya and Uganda as well. The alliance between Al Shabab and Al Qaeda isn’t going away until a foreign nation takes action against it, but who knows what consequences could arise from that? There are too few plausible solutions.

Source: The Al Qaeda Reader

Source: "Al Shabab" from The New York Times

 

Shaking Hands

On January 8, 2011, Somalia took another leap backwards.

In Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, militants associated with Al Qaeda decided to ban unrelated men and women from shaking hands, speaking, or walking together in public. Violators of this newly implemented policy could be imprisoned, whipped, and in some cases, executed. Residents of Mogadishu feel victimized and have discovered a newfound fear of communication in general. One man said, "I've started ignoring the greetings of the women I know to avoid punishment...I feel like I'm under arrest."

However, it's unfortunate, yet true, that this recent law is not nearly as detrimental as many of the others. The insurgents have essentially banned women from working in public, forcing them to either sell goods in the marketplace to make money (which is illegal, and punishable by execution), or to remain at home to watch their children starve. Furthermore, some Al Qaeda-linked gunmen roam the streets and buses, searching solely for improperly dressed women, or women travelling alone, just to find easy targets of violence. The clothing that the Islamists require of the women is not only uncomfortably modest, but expensive as well; many women must stay at home to avoid being seen without the robes.

The Islamists have also banned the cinema, music, and bras because they are “un-Islamic.” They now also insist that men grow their beards, but shave their mustaches. These unnecessary and unethical restrictions on human rights, freedom of speech, and equality are pushing Somalia further towards complete destruction. African Union peacekeepers and the UN must rethink their strategies and act quickly, before Al Shabab and Al Qaeda take over the entire nation.

Mahbubani and Judt

                In the article, “The Case Against the West,” Mahbubani focuses on the decline of the American influence and the rise of the rest of the world. Similarly, Tony Judt in his article, “What Have we Learned, if Anything?” criticizes America’s actions throughout the twentieth century and asserts that the United States must reexamine its past in order to continue its reign as a global power. I tend to agree more with the latter, as Judt’s argument seems much more rational, and much more well-presented than Mahbubani’s article.

                Mahbibani’s article appears to be more of a rant than a thoughtful argument to me. He does provide valid points about the hypocrisy of the United States regarding Iran and North Korea, as well as the United States approach to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but his assertion that the west is ignorant of the rise of Asia and unwilling to accept their economic improvement is misleading, if not blatantly false. The United States’ relationship with China is peaceful, more peaceful than it has been in many years, and I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Peace between China and the United States is essential for the development of the rest of the globe. The United States economy depends on the Chinese economy, and the Chinese economy depends on the United States economy. As two dominant global powers, it is necessary that they remain on good terms to preserve (what’s left of) world peace. Mahbubani seems to almost suggest that we should sever our relationship with China and the rest of Asia, and completely remove ourselves from the global scene in general.

                Judt, on the other hand, emphasizes that the United States must turn to the twentieth century for guidance regarding future decisions. This seems to be much more logical. Judt talks about how Americans do not fully comprehend war and how they will willingly go into war as a first choice, rather than a last resort. Though the assertion that Americans do not comprehend war makes perfect sense to me, I do not believe it is necessarily the fault of the United States that they have not experienced a ridiculous number of casualities in the two world wars. However, this argument is still valid and I Do agree that we need to pay more attention to the events of the twentieth century, especially our involvement in Iraq and the Middle East.  

                Overall, I tend to agree more with Judt than Mahbbubani.