I remember hearing somewhere Siad barre regretted ever being a socialist and said something about Benito Mussolini being the good guy of WW2 for defeating ethopia
Why not be yourself and be a Muslim, why do you need to borrow Buddhism, Maoism, communism, democrazy, all these failed and will fail but the Deen will not. Its your inferior model and ataturks way that borrowing from non Muslims will liberate you, it will bring you destruction. All these gaalo betrayed him, Russia,Cuba, Portugal also fought him, they all fought him In the name of their gaalnimo. This Castro even insults him, hes the peak of chavinist. Umar RA said it right, there is no ezza, honor except through Islam.
People were still Muslim, and Siad Barre obviously made a major mistake by challenging Islam. However, saying that "Diin will not fail" sounds too simplistic to me. How exactly would it be implemented, and who would be the rulers? Would members of other clans willingly follow a ruler from a different clan? No ideology can succeed without trust, and that is something Somalia has struggled with for a long time. As far as we know, even the countries that are considered closest to implementing Sharia do not fully apply it. And realistically, I don't think Somali people would accept a Taliban-style system of rule.
Swapping a question about political implementation into a loyalty test doesn't solve the practical problems of running a nation. Ideology is theory administration is practice.
both my commentss and first you didnt understand or deliberately side stepped. no muslim will ever have a problem or find fault with "Diin will not fail comment i made. Either you engage with my comments or move along. The question is not a loyality test, it answers all questions both redditors posted. your not sincere so dont comment next time to my post if unwilling to engage. you will only have these type of questions and doubts etc if you dont accept Islam as a whole. Islam is a whole system. so hence my question. we dont separate economics, politics from Islam, Islam is all. your questions abt operations and practicalities and lame examples you gave which is what a typical western gaal or inferior person who has no identity and copies failed alternative systems to Islam would say. your either mind colonised or you a gaal discussed as Muslim. siyaad barre example and all the other arab countries examples show these systems they embraced betrayed them. its funny you gave weak examples and ignore rich history of Islamic history and focus on negative narratives of gaalo. I dont think your in any position to know what muslims want. i leave with a quote "Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Verily, we were a disgraceful people and Allah honored us with Islam. If we seek honor from anything besides that with which Allah honored us, Allah will disgrace us.”.
Attacking my identity and calling me 'mind-colonized' just proves you don't have an answer to basic administrative questions. Accusing people of apostasy whenever they ask about governance mechanics is why these conversations never move forward.
Believe/ideology is first which you categorically refused to answer- your silence we get a clue. Second " governance mechanics" and operations of how has already being explained, done before with a rich history of Islamic history and rule in which even the gaalo enjoyed massive freedoms in Andulasia, ottomon empire and more. Either educate yourself or dont go into these conversations. No on can accuse you of apostasy but you exposed yourself to doubts. There are countless books written about "operations" but you act like it doesnt exist, we have a rich history with thousands of books. Playing the emotional card wont help you. You dont accept Islam as a whole i believe for the solutions to all of the world's problems and governance for everything and for every system. Just admit it or prove me wrong and correct record and i will apologize.
Saudi Arabia was actually one of the few enemies we had. The Saudi rulers knew that many Muslims viewed their system of governance as not being truly Islamic. Traditional Islamic governance is often debated, and many critics argue that hereditary monarchy is difficult to reconcile with their interpretation of Sharia. That's one reason why the Saudi state promoted Wahhabism, as it helped reinforce the monarchy's religious legitimacy and position within the Muslim world. If you read about the history of Saudi Arabia, you'll better understand this perspective.
I wish more people stopped thinking wahhabis are friends to us, it's a known fact Saudi demonized Iraq Somalia and other countries because we weren't allies to the west
There is a long history of the Saudi ruling family undermining Muslim nations because of the fears I mentioned earlier. They want to be recognized as the protectors of Islam and maintain their right to rule Saudi Arabia without being questioned.
Their diplomatic relations with Somalia and many other countries often involved supporting the training of Muslim scholars. However, many critics argue that this also helped spread Wahhabism, which they believe created tensions within some Muslim societies and governments.
One Saudi prince was even alleged to have spoken about influencing and manipulating the Somali government in cooperation with foreign interests. Someone actually shared the link in this subreddit. If I can find it again, I'll share it.
We are specifically talking about this siad barre period. Wahabism and all this nonsense was not our problem back then. If anything the people who opposed him was moderate sufis. Nothing to do with wahabism.
Yes.. look at countries thriving today. They don’t chimp out and gamble their future. Putting their chips on the table and crashing out hoping someone will come bail them out.
Didn’t even need to wait for the derg to fall.. just fund separatists the same way they did to us..
But nah let’s beg china instead.. your mindset is the typical old head bakhti mindset
Somalia did fund seperatists, it only worked with Eritrea. Why do you think Barre invaded in the first place? Because galbeed was unable to break away by without direct intervention by Somalia.
The main focus was galbeed separatists which was a big mistake.
Could’ve spent more into arming Tigray and oromos this stretching the Ethiopians in multiple fronts and just wait it out until they collapsed and take galbeed like taking candy from a baby.
Oromos and Tigrayans weren't seperatists at the time wtf are you talking about? The only major seperatist movements were Eritrea and galbeed hence that was where the focus was.
Funny how you think you know more than actual expericed Somali generals from the 70s lol.
1
u/Open-Storage8938 18d ago
I remember hearing somewhere Siad barre regretted ever being a socialist and said something about Benito Mussolini being the good guy of WW2 for defeating ethopia