The morality of paying clan membership fees( Qaaraan) while residing outside its sphere of influence
Somalis are people of kinship who place immense value on maintaining family connections. After all, maintaining kinship and helping other family members are divine commands.
In this piece, I will share an emerging debate about the morality of Qaaraan payments by members who no longer reside in their clan’s sphere of influence. This debate is taking place among some diasporic members who are increasingly questioning the transnational nature of Qaaraan.
To elucidate the debate, I will draw on the story of Ahmed, who resides in the Diaspora and is frequently asked to pay transnational Qaaraan to his clan members in Somalia.
But before that, let us ground ourselves in the origin and historical application of Qaraan and what is of Qaaraan.
The Origin of the Concept
Somalis’ history is that of pastoralist tradition — people who move around with their animal stock from one place to another. Pastoralists’ quintessential culture and practice is despising central authorities; they are restless people who view the grass as always greener on the other side.
The combination of constant movements and a lack of central authority to maintain law and order makes communal conflict inevitable. Conflict resolution is therefore required to deal with this inevitability, and this is where the Qaaraan concept traces its original conception.
Qaraan is, in essence, a social contract between clan members that requires any member, mainly male members, to contribute to the cost of maintaining, on the one hand, the peace between their clan and other adjacent clans and, on the other hand, the well-being of the clan members in the event of calamity.
One well-known application of Qaraan payment is blood money( Mag), compensation( in money, animal, etc.) payable to the clan members whose members are killed by another clan member. Blood money is and has been one of Somalis’ best conflict resolution methods. If the clan whose members wronged others fail to pay, then retribution will ensue, which will be more costly than the original blood money.
Another well-known use of Qaaraan is to maintain the well-being of other less fortunate members within the clan.
Looking at the two types of Qaaraan applications, one is struck by the concept’s usefulness for conflict resolution and member welfare- so there is no debate about Qaaraan and its social value.
However, a legitimate debate exists about when Qaaraan becomes transnational and follows members beyond clans’ spheres of influence.
To elucidate the debate, let me introduce the story of Ahmed- an upright, hardworking, tax-paying father of 5 who lives in the Diaspora.
Ahmed is a 52-year-old who left Somalia 29 years ago. Although he is still connected to Somalia through occasional visits and what he calls his never-ending remittance, he is happy to call the UK his home. He has a history degree from a good university, but due to the competitive nature of the labour market, he has not put his degree to use and instead works as an Uber driver.
Ahmed is a soft-spoken man who will help anyone with his time and money. Lately, however, he has started to question a practice that bothers him and his peers. This practice is what I coin as transnational Qaaraan — clan membership payments that do not respect national boundaries.
Ahmed would receive a phone call from elders of his clan in Somalia, and they would ask him to contribute Qaaraan money for people wronged by his clan.
The storyline would be: ‘ So and so, who is the son of so and so, has run over an elderly man in the street while driving a car. As per cultural practice, we must pay Mag( blood money) to the deceased family member; therefore, we want you to send your contribution towards this Mag.’
Ahmed, without question, will contribute, fearing if he refuses to do so, he will be labelled as ‘ Qaaraan Diid’, which can result in clan ostracism.
Ahmed is not refusing to honour the age old-social contract of paying Qaaraan, but he is legitimately raising the issue of fairness and accountability.
The central point of his argument is why a person like him, who no longer lives in the sphere of his clan’s vicinity and who is now a fully paid member of the society he has joined, is asked to keep paying the upkeep of an environment in which he no longer has a residence.
Ahmed has an intellectually convincing argument, and he has lots of support from his peers in the Diaspora who are subjected to the same payment demands, including the author of this piece. However, where I depart from Ahmed is that whether transnational or national, Qaaraan is one of the most important social contracts between one and his clan.
Although Ahmed is no longer part of his clan environment, his contribution serves an essential upkeep of other clan members; therefore, for the good of his people, he should maintain his membership fee, i.e. the Qaaraan, as long as it takes.
