War in Southern Somalia nearly over

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8047750.stm

The above is a link to a story from the BBC showing the war in southern somalia is alhamdulillah moving into its final stages and the forces of apostasy and kufr are out numbered, out gunned and pinned into one small part of the capital by the mujahideen, may Allah swt give strength to the mujahideen to complete their victory soon, ameen.

:sl:

[Whatsthepoint]

Will you leave there as soon as the sharia forces win?

[edil]

Alhamduliah all praise are due to Allah. Ameen Akhi.

[Dawud_uk]

Will you leave there as soon as the sharia forces win?

if i had the funds and the means, i.e a few grand and was able to go without being arrested so basically yes, it is my intention to go inshallah (God willing) as unlike other parts of the muslim world they have specifically made a promise to look after and find work for those who make hijrah there.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Maryan0]

honestly aren't these people tired of fighting (not the civilians) it's like take a break have a kitkat subhanallah
anyways apostasy and kufr are pretty serious accusations
salaam

[TrueStranger]

:sl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8047750.stm

The above is a link to a story from the BBC showing the war in southern somalia is alhamdulillah moving into its final stages and the forces of apostasy and kufr are out numbered, out gunned and pinned into one small part of the capital by the mujahideen, may Allah swt give strength to the mujahideen to complete their victory soon, ameen.

:sl:

:w:

Refrain from praise those you do NOT know!

[Intisar]

:sl:

:w:

Refrain from praise those you do NOT know!

JazakAllaah khair.

if i had the funds and the means, i.e a few grand and was able to go without being arrested so basically yes, it is my intention to go inshallah (God willing) as unlike other parts of the muslim world they have specifically made a promise to look after and find work for those who make hijrah there.

You really believe that nonsense, when the natives of Somalia cannot even go back?

[Maryan0]

apparently this here is a video of civilians defending themselves against Al shabaab
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4t7O...layer_embedded

Al shabaab were in the right when they were fighting off the ethiopians and they were quite popular than, but since they chose to continue fighting when the majority of somalis were happy with the new govenment their popularity has waned. somalia doesn't need more bloodshed and sheik sharif has repeatedly asked al shabaab to negotiate and be a part of rebuilding somalia but they chose to continue on with useless bloodshed that caused and is continuing to cause the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

the majority of somalis have asked them to lay down their arms and negotiate, the goverment has asked them to lay down their arms and negotiate, scholars the world over have told them to cease their fighting, lay down their arms and negotiate. labeling all who are opposed to them apostates just goes to show how intolerant they are and mujahidin they most definetly are not.

or
http://i31.tinypic.com/2rek5mw.jpg

the pic above is by a somali comic who is known for his political cartoons
the man standing on the other man symbolizes al shabaab, and he is telling the man he is standing to "shut up i'm trying to protect you from the enemy"
and the man he is standing on symbolizes the somali people or civilians and he's saying " oh Allah you see the enemy, protect us from them we've had enough".
al shabaab have their redeeming qualities but they are fighting for political ambitions which make them worse than even are previous president because even though he was bad he didn't do bad things in the name of Allah and Islam.
salaam

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:

is islam a democracy? no. clearly not, we have a concept of shura but only in halal matters. people cannot choose for a nation haram, it is not allowed.

so even if what you said is true, even if the majority of the people wanted the government of sheikh sharif and it wasn't a halal option could the mujahideen take that option?

no, they couldnt if that was the case.

so therefore what it is necessary to prove is that the sharif govt is not legitimate islamically, that he has aposticated and should come back to islam before it is too late.

if i can prove this to you would you agree that i was correct before an you should support the mujahideen at least in your du'as?

:sl:

[salafy_masry]

salam alikum

It is very strange that sheik sharif is now a god man in the eyes of the west and the UN .. although we all know that he was on the side of the mujahedeen ... I don't if I can trust him now .. allahu al'am

[Dawud_uk]

salam alikum

It is very strange that sheik sharif is now a god man in the eyes of the west and the UN .. although we all know that he was on the side of the mujahedeen ... I don't if I can trust him now .. allahu al'am

:w:

judge him by the company he keeps, the secularists, the ethiopians who only a short while ago were fighting the believers and are still fighting them in their own country and the western governments.

:w:

[salafy_masry]

:w:

judge him by the company he keeps, the secularists, the ethiopians who only a short while ago were fighting the believers and are still fighting them in their own country and the western governments.

:w:

So how come he has these people around him ?

[Dawud_uk]

So how come he has these people around him ?

the secularists dont want an islamic government, it is the last thing they want so they first paid the warlords to fight to prevent the Islamic courts.

when this didnt work they got their allies the ethiopians to do their dirty work for them, who also dont want an islamic state on their doorstep with their own muslim population and massive abuses against them.

when this didnt work they seek to divide and rule, take what is for them the lesser of two evils and get sharif to switch sides, join with the secularists and say this is now the true government.

who says?

how do we determine leadership in islam, is it democracy? no. is it whomever the outside world appoints for us, no.

sharif has taken the kuffar as awliyah, he flies around the world, meeting these people who hate islam, they only accept him because they know he is the last barrier before true islamic government.

they are petrified that if he now fails, which looks likely then the mujahideen will take over and impose shariah in a very stategic location in the world and that it will then spread to surrounding regions and eventually become a threat to themselves.

any true islamic state is a threat to the west, it gives an alternative to their secular consumerism, a different model of living to people to observe and decide if they like or not.

without this with dawah we only have theoretical models, no examples today to point to. but when people see the rule of Allah on the earth then they will enter into islam in huge numbers.

[salafy_masry]

the secularists dont want an islamic government, it is the last thing they want so they first paid the warlords to fight to prevent the Islamic courts.

when this didnt work they got their allies the ethiopians to do their dirty work for them, who also dont want an islamic state on their doorstep with their own muslim population and massive abuses against them.

when this didnt work they seek to divide and rule, take what is for them the lesser of two evils and get sharif to switch sides, join with the secularists and say this is now the true government.

who says?

how do we determine leadership in islam, is it democracy? no. is it whomever the outside world appoints for us, no.

sharif has taken the kuffar as awliyah, he flies around the world, meeting these people who hate islam, they only accept him because they know he is the last barrier before true islamic government.

they are petrified that if he now fails, which looks likely then the mujahideen will take over and impose shariah in a very stategic location in the world and that it will then spread to surrounding regions and eventually become a threat to themselves.

any true islamic state is a threat to the west, it gives an alternative to their secular consumerism, a different model of living to people to observe and decide if they like or not.

without this with dawah we only have theoretical models, no examples today to point to. but when people see the rule of Allah on the earth then they will enter into islam in huge numbers.

well i guess i was not clear enough .. but I am sure that the west and the UN wont allow any islamic ruling to exist .. they will fight it with all their power .. but allah swt is the greatest.

thats why i was surprised they accepted this man as a leader to somailia with his history with jihad before

[Maryan0]

is islam a democracy? no. clearly not, we have a concept of shura but only in halal matters. people cannot choose for a nation haram, it is not allowed.

to an exent islam does have some democratic elements or certain concepts in common with democracies,what haraam have they chose for the nation? Sheik Sharif is a well known sheik, he was a staunch fighter and opponent of the ethiopians. before this man even came into power they were yelling apostate!munafiq! understand that somalia's situation is a complicated one. somalia is a nation of warlords and tribal affiliations. the man has accepted sharia law, he has continued to ask these men to join the peace process but they have continued to refuse him and further cause the deaths of 100's of somalis and for what?
getting rid of the warlords, establishing an islamic state takes time, sheik sharif isn't superhuman and nothing happens in a day. had somalis united among themselves instead of continuing on with useless fighting in which the main casualties are civilians than we wouln't need amisom,the ethiopian would be gone and somalia would finally after countless failed goverments be able to recover.

so even if what you said is true, even if the majority of the people wanted the government of sheikh sharif and it wasn't a halal option could the mujahideen take that option?
how is it not the halal option? because he shook hands with meles zenawi?
the people support him, the islamic courts support him, the ahlusunnah waljamaca support him.are there secularists, murderers,warlords in the somali goverment? yes, but like i said before somalia is nation of warlords and tribal affiliations, somalia is also a nation that has not had an effective gov't for almost 20 years. the reversal of the attitudes that somalis have will take time and fighting pointless battles with the main deaths being civilians causes nothing but more resentment.
if al shabaab truly wanted peace they would have tried to talk before taking up arms and had sheik sharif been a fraud than they would have at the least had some sort of basis for fighting. do it my way or else will not work in somalia, somalia's situation is to complicated for that.

so therefore what it is necessary to prove is that the sharif govt is not legitimate islamically, that he has aposticated and should come back to islam before it is too late.
Sheik Sharif is a great man in my books and I don't believe he has "aposticated".he's shown alot more patience to al shabbaab more than they deserve.
if i can prove this to you would you agree that i was correct before an you should support the mujahideen at least in your du'as?
you can try.
salaam

[Intisar]

:sl:

is islam a democracy? no. clearly not, we have a concept of shura but only in halal matters. people cannot choose for a nation haram, it is not allowed.

so even if what you said is true, even if the majority of the people wanted the government of sheikh sharif and it wasn't a halal option could the mujahideen take that option?

no, they couldnt if that was the case.

so therefore what it is necessary to prove is that the sharif govt is not legitimate islamically, that he has aposticated and should come back to islam before it is too late.

if i can prove this to you would you agree that i was correct before an you should support the mujahideen at least in your du'as?

:sl:

:w: Are you calling Al-Shabab mujahideen? Since when were they mujahideen, and what exactly are they fighting for? :?

[Whatsthepoint]

if i had the funds and the means, i.e a few grand and was able to go without being arrested so basically yes, it is my intention to go inshallah (God willing) as unlike other parts of the muslim world they have specifically made a promise to look after and find work for those who make hijrah there.

That's good, you want to go, but if you managed to make 1 grand in a year you're not trying enough.

[Dawud_uk]

That's good, you want to go, but if you managed to make 1 grand in a year you're not trying enough.

tell you what, why dont you send me a big envolope stuffed with cash and double it?

[Dawud_uk]

:w: Are you calling Al-Shabab mujahideen? Since when were they mujahideen, and what exactly are they fighting for? :?

a mujahid is one who fights in the path of Allah, fighting to make Allah's deen most high. do you not think this is the intention of ash-shahab?

have they not consistantly fought the enemies of Allah, the secularists, the warlords, the ethiopians, the AU forces?

are you saying they are not mujahideen, if so why do they not fight for Allah, if you believe they do not or do you have a different definition of mujahid to mine?

[Dawud_uk]

is islam a democracy? no. clearly not, we have a concept of shura but only in halal matters. people cannot choose for a nation haram, it is not allowed.

to an exent islam does have some democratic elements or certain concepts in common with democracies,what haraam have they chose for the nation? Sheik Sharif is a well known sheik, he was a staunch fighter and opponent of the ethiopians. before this man even came into power they were yelling apostate!munafiq! understand that somalia's situation is a complicated one. somalia is a nation of warlords and tribal affiliations. the man has accepted sharia law, he has continued to ask these men to join the peace process but they have continued to refuse him and further cause the deaths of 100's of somalis and for what?
getting rid of the warlords, establishing an islamic state takes time, sheik sharif isn't superhuman and nothing happens in a day. had somalis united among themselves instead of continuing on with useless fighting in which the main casualties are civilians than we wouln't need amisom,the ethiopian would be gone and somalia would finally after countless failed goverments be able to recover.

so even if what you said is true, even if the majority of the people wanted the government of sheikh sharif and it wasn't a halal option could the mujahideen take that option?
how is it not the halal option? because he shook hands with meles zenawi?
the people support him, the islamic courts support him, the ahlusunnah waljamaca support him.are there secularists, murderers,warlords in the somali goverment? yes, but like i said before somalia is nation of warlords and tribal affiliations, somalia is also a nation that has not had an effective gov't for almost 20 years. the reversal of the attitudes that somalis have will take time and fighting pointless battles with the main deaths being civilians causes nothing but more resentment.
if al shabaab truly wanted peace they would have tried to talk before taking up arms and had sheik sharif been a fraud than they would have at the least had some sort of basis for fighting. do it my way or else will not work in somalia, somalia's situation is to complicated for that.

so therefore what it is necessary to prove is that the sharif govt is not legitimate islamically, that he has aposticated and should come back to islam before it is too late.
Sheik Sharif is a great man in my books and I don't believe he has "aposticated".he's shown alot more patience to al shabbaab more than they deserve.
if i can prove this to you would you agree that i was correct before an you should support the mujahideen at least in your du'as?
you can try.
salaam

:sl:

sister there are certain things that are 'known by necessity' in islam, certain matters which no matter how strongly a person claims islam, if they cross these lines they are apostates.

now one of these is the matter of allying with the non muslims whilst they are fighting the believers, this is clear cut kufr known by necessity.

Allah saying in the Quran,

"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but 'Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as 'Auliya' then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)." 5:51

so do you accept this is a matter of kufr akbar, kufr which will take you outside of islam?

So thought sheikh sharif may have done some good in the past, that is not doubted if he turns away from that then he will be judged by what he is doing now.

Now he is going to the kuffar, allying with the british, americans, ethiopians, the AU, the UN, all those who have shown themselves clear enemies of islam and yet he goes with them, smiles as his shakes their hands and signs agreements with them.

:sl:

[salafy_masry]

I really can't understand how muslims would trust that the "west" would approve on having a muslim leader that will "rule" with quran and sunnah ..

If someone here knows anything about that .. would you please show me evidence that they will approve it !!

[Maryan0]

:sl:

sister there are certain things that are 'known by necessity' in islam, certain matters which no matter how strongly a person claims islam, if they cross these lines they are apostates.

now one of these is the matter of allying with the non muslims whilst they are fighting the believers, this is clear cut kufr known by necessity.

Allah saying in the Quran,

"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but 'Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as 'Auliya' then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)." 5:51

so do you accept this is a matter of kufr akbar, kufr which will take you outside of islam?

So thought sheikh sharif may have done some good in the past, that is not doubted if he turns away from that then he will be judged by what he is doing now.

Now he is going to the kuffar, allying with the british, americans, ethiopians, the AU, the UN, all those who have shown themselves clear enemies of islam and yet he goes with them, smiles as his shakes their hands and signs agreements with them.

:sl:

shaking hands with non muslims doesn't prove kufr, that's a pretty narrow way to look at things. how exactly is he supposed to go about it in the world we live in today threaten to kill them? sometimes you need to compromise for the sake of other people or at least save your threats until you have some sort of power base to threaten from. sheik sharif understands that and that's why he has continuosly asked for every group to bring something to the peace process and this says alot about his character, the fact that al shabaab continues on with pointless fighting irregradless of the suffering it is causing says alot about them.

anyways the only way you can fight a muslim goverment is if the goverment is seriously off the right path ignoring the quran or sunnah or insulting the quran and sunnah or neglecting the fundamentals of islam.
the fact that every single group in somalia is opposed to this group says alot about them and should serve as a warning to those who support them.
salaam

[Dawud_uk]

I really can't understand how muslims would trust that the "west" would approve on having a muslim leader that will "rule" with quran and sunnah ..

If someone here knows anything about that .. would you please show me evidence that they will approve it !!

Allah swt informs us in the Quran they will never be pleased with you, not unless you become like them, so if they are pleased with you then there is something one with you!

Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." 2:120

[Maryan0]

I really can't understand how muslims would trust that the "west" would approve on having a muslim leader that will "rule" with quran and sunnah ..

If someone here knows anything about that .. would you please show me evidence that they will approve it !!

who knows? maybe they think they can bend him to their will. time will tell, until than i think he deserves to be given a chance
salaam

[Dawud_uk]

shaking hands with non muslims doesn't prove kufr, that's a pretty narrow way to look at things. how exactly is he supposed to go about it in the world we live in today threaten to kill them? sometimes you need to compromise for the sake of other people or at least save your threats until you have some sort of power base to threaten from. sheik sharif understands that and that's why he has continuosly asked for every group to bring something to the peace process and this says alot about his character, the fact that al shabaab continues on with pointless fighting irregradless of the suffering it is causing says alot about them.

anyways the only way you can fight a muslim goverment is if the goverment is seriously off the right path ignoring the quran or sunnah or insulting the quran and sunnah or neglecting the fundamentals of islam.
the fact that every single group in somalia is opposed to this group says alot about them and should serve as a warning to those who support them.
salaam

you have put across a straw man argument, did i say he was a kaffir because he shook hands with them?

no i said he was a kaffir for allying with them, taking as his allies the same who are fighting the believers the world over.

do you agree alliance with the kuffar who are warring with the believers is a form of kufr akbar, and kufr known by necessity?

Ibn Hazm Stated in Al-Muhalla (11/138):

"What is correct is that His statement, the Most High, "And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them." (The Quran 5:51), should be understood on the basis of its apparent meaning. The person being referred to is a disbeliever from the generality of disbelievers, and no two Muslims disagree regarding this."

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, gathered ten actions that negate one's Islam (Nawaqid ul-'Ashr), the eighth one of which states:

"Assisting the disbelievers (against the believers) (Mudhaharatul Mushrikeen) and supporting them against the believers (is from the actions that negates of one's faith). The Proof being the statement of Allah, "And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust). (The Quran 5:51)."

Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdur Rahman bin Hassan Aal-Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him stated (Ad-Durrar 8/326):

"Whosoever helps the disbelievers or draws them to the country of Ahl Al-Islam (People of Islam), then such is a manifest apostate by consensus."

Sheikh Abdullah ibn Humaid may Allah have mercy on him, stated(Ad-Durrar 15/479):

"Whoever expresses Tawalli [2] towards the disbelievers (Tawalli Kuffar) and supports and helps them against the believers, then such constitutes apostasy by one's (proceeding) actions. It is obligatory to apply the rules of apostasy upon such a person as is proved by the book, the sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.

Sheikh Ibn Baz stated (Al-Fatawa 1/274):

"There is a consensus amongst the scholars that whoever supports the disbelievers against the believers (Dhahar Al-Kuffar 'Ala Al-Muslimeen), and assists them by any means of assistance, then he is a disbeliever just like them (the disbelievers he supported)…"

[salafy_masry]

who knows? maybe they think they can bend him to their will. time will tell, until than i think he deserves to be given a chance
salaam

So you really believe that they would agree on having a country that is ruled by shariah .. the quran and sunnah that allah swt wants muslims to rule with ?

[Maryan0]

So you really believe that they would agree on having a country that is ruled by shariah .. the quran and sunnah that allah swt wants muslims to rule with ?

lol didnt he already agree to shariah?
for somali news, hiiraan.com would be a start
salaam

[Maryan0]

you have put across a straw man argument, did i say he was a kaffir because he shook hands with them?

no i said he was a kaffir for allying with them, taking as his allies the same who are fighting the believers the world over.

do you agree alliance with the kuffar who are warring with the believers is a form of kufr akbar, and kufr known by necessity?

Ibn Hazm Stated in Al-Muhalla (11/138):

"What is correct is that His statement, the Most High, "And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them." (The Quran 5:51), should be understood on the basis of its apparent meaning. The person being referred to is a disbeliever from the generality of disbelievers, and no two Muslims disagree regarding this."

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, gathered ten actions that negate one's Islam (Nawaqid ul-'Ashr), the eighth one of which states:

"Assisting the disbelievers (against the believers) (Mudhaharatul Mushrikeen) and supporting them against the believers (is from the actions that negates of one's faith). The Proof being the statement of Allah, "And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust). (The Quran 5:51)."

Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdur Rahman bin Hassan Aal-Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him stated (Ad-Durrar 8/326):

"Whosoever helps the disbelievers or draws them to the country of Ahl Al-Islam (People of Islam), then such is a manifest apostate by consensus."

Sheikh Abdullah ibn Humaid may Allah have mercy on him, stated(Ad-Durrar 15/479):

"Whoever expresses Tawalli [2] towards the disbelievers (Tawalli Kuffar) and supports and helps them against the believers, then such constitutes apostasy by one's (proceeding) actions. It is obligatory to apply the rules of apostasy upon such a person as is proved by the book, the sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.

Sheikh Ibn Baz stated (Al-Fatawa 1/274):

"There is a consensus amongst the scholars that whoever supports the disbelievers against the believers (Dhahar Al-Kuffar 'Ala Al-Muslimeen), and assists them by any means of assistance, then he is a disbeliever just like them (the disbelievers he supported)…"

brother you have put up a weak arguement.
you have accused a muslim man of apostasy and kufr, yet you have brought absolutely no proof to support your allegations,false accusations are a crime in islam. because he has flown the world over that makes him an ally of the non muslims? that's called politics. you hold a very simplistic view.
where has he supported non muslims? where has he allied themselves with them?

it's easy to endorse a war behind a computer screen because the war doesn't hit close to home but you need to take into account the people who are dying everyday absolutly no reason at all other than the ambitions of selfish men.
salaam

[TrueStranger]

:sl: Dawud

Talking about allying with the kafurs, care to tell me where Aweys the leader of Al-Shabaab was the two years Ethiopia was in Somalia? Where did he go? Who did he go to? Why did he go to him?

I am tried of these double standards. I repeat myself again, praise not those you know nothing about.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl: Dawud

Talking about allying with the kafurs, care to tell me where Aweys the leader of Al-Shabaab was the two years Ethiopia was in Somalia? Where did he go? Who did he go to? Why did he go to him?

I am tried of these double standards. I repeat myself again, praise not those you know nothing about.

:w:

inform yourself more thoroughly next time before you cast your suspicions around.

sheikh aweys is not the leader of ash shabaab, he is not even the leader of hisbul islam, though he is a spiritual advisor to them.

[Dawud_uk]

brother you have put up a weak arguement.
you have accused a muslim man of apostasy and kufr, yet you have brought absolutely no proof to support your allegations,false accusations are a crime in islam. because he has flown the world over that makes him an ally of the non muslims? that's called politics. you hold a very simplistic view.
where has he supported non muslims? where has he allied themselves with them?

it's easy to endorse a war behind a computer screen because the war doesn't hit close to home but you need to take into account the people who are dying everyday absolutly no reason at all other than the ambitions of selfish men.
salaam

:sl:

you are correct in what i am doing is sitting at home, i have made an intention to make hijrah but unless i do it and go there i am in reality little better than anyone else in talks about these issues.

but simuarly you are also at home, discussing something when you are not there. when the salaf had a big issue they would say to go ask those on the front line, because they had the greatest knowledge.

now you say i have produced no proof, perhaps that is my own weak way of putting the evidences across but do you agree to ally with the kuffar is apostasy, it is kufr known by necessity?

:sl:

[Maryan0]

you are correct in what i am doing is sitting at home, i have made an intention to make hijrah but unless i do it and go there i am in reality little better than anyone else in talks about these issues.

but simuarly you are also at home, discussing something when you are not there. when the salaf had a big issue they would say to go ask those on the front line, because they had the greatest knowledge.

yes i am also at home but i'm not propagating a war, i'm somali, most of my family reside in somalia and having them call everyday because they have been displaced or their children have been killed over petty issues is not pleasent, neither is seeing the stress it causes my parents.
it's nice that you are for an islamic state and that is a dream that many muslims have but you won't find it in somalia neither will you find it with al shabaab.

now you say i have produced no proof, perhaps that is my own weak way of putting the evidences across but do you agree to ally with the kuffar is apostasy, it is kufr known by necessity?

again bro you have produced "no" proof of sheik sharif abandoning his beliefs and allying himself with the non muslims. again accusing a fellow muslim of apostasy and kufr (2 very serious crimes) without proof can itself lead to kufr.

salam

[salafy_masry]

lol didnt he already agree to shariah?
for somali news, hiiraan.com would be a start
salaam

lol .. yes the shariah of the UN for sure ;)

[TrueStranger]

:w:

inform yourself more thoroughly next time before you cast your suspicions around.

sheikh aweys is not the leader of ash shabaab, he is not even the leader of hisbul islam, though he is a spiritual advisor to them.

Al-Shabaab and all these war lovers, along with Aweys are a danger to the innocent people of Somalia. Their war mentality is what you support, simply because you are not the one affected by it, nor is your family. They kill people indiscriminately , and their agenda is nothing but to bring destruction on opposing clans and tribes.

The people suffering are Somalis, the people dying are Somalis, the people who are becoming homeless are Somalis, the orphans are Somalis, the starving people are Somalis. Three million people are suffering because Aweys wants to become the president of Somalia by force. I have never seen people who are so happy to kill their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, even when they were invited over and over again to peace talks. Are they doing anything for the people of Somalia but shot bullets that kill innocent Somalis and displaces them?

Aweys is the "spiritual" leader of the opposition groups, that includes Al-Shabaab, they oppose anyone he opposes, and they fight when he tells them to fight. Now why is Aweys allying himself with the Eritrean Christian Dictator against his Muslim brother Shiekh Ahmed?

[Intisar]

:sl:

you are correct in what i am doing is sitting at home, i have made an intention to make hijrah but unless i do it and go there i am in reality little better than anyone else in talks about these issues.

but simuarly you are also at home, discussing something when you are not there. when the salaf had a big issue they would say to go ask those on the front line, because they had the greatest knowledge.

now you say i have produced no proof, perhaps that is my own weak way of putting the evidences across but do you agree to ally with the kuffar is apostasy, it is kufr known by necessity?

:sl:

:w: Now that's so easy for you to say because you're not Somali and thus you are not affected by the hardship going in my country. They have held Somalia captive for over 18 years now, and now these people have either drawn into Islamic factions or they're former warlords who participated in the carnage of their fellow Muslimeen and were apart of the Federal Gov't (the TFG). So please, spare me the ''mujahideen'' talk, when you yourself are sitting comfortably in your nice house not getting any calls begging for money just to make it to the next day, week, month. :rollseyes

I understand your support, and honestly Somalis want Shar'iah, they've never been opposed to it. But they have to live through it, they have to live through seeing the situation not changing at all for them (except for about 6 months of relative peace in 2006).

So yes, it is nice to make the intention for hijrah. But is that really realistic when the people who ran away from their own country, and were even telling themselves that the war would only last a mere weeks, months but never this long haven't been able to go back?

Understand the situation, for those who were born there, who lived there for a couple of years and then moved to the West never to see their beautiful country back to the way it was....it is more than ridiculous to call what these warlords are doing as jihad and calling them ''mujahideen''.

[TrueStranger]

lol .. yes the shariah of the UN for sure ;)

Anything is better than the rule of Al-Shabaab.

[Maryan0]

lol .. yes the shariah of the UN for sure ;)

well if you say so, no point in asking a question if you already have your answer made up
salaam

[nocturnal]

Would it not be feasible for Al Shaabab to form a coalition government with Sheikh Shariff's elected government rather than to forcefully and systematically take town after town in their declared endeavour to rid the country of AU peacekeepers but with no realistic vision in terms of how the country would be run.

Sheikh Shariff was an intrinsic part of the Islamic Courts that administered key civic functions of government and did so with a highly impressive level of efficacy. And it would be quite ludicrous to question his credentials as a principled politician, who does not allow himself to be drawn into western plots of subversion.

So surely with all that in mind, it would make sense for them to reconcile and consolidate a new political formation based on consensus in Somalia, rather than a country riven by warring factions plunging the country into carnage and mayhem.

[salafy_masry]

well if you say so, no point in asking a question if you already have your answer made up
salaam

I didn't realize what's going on with sheik sharif till I started to read this thread .. I was really wondering why was he accepted by the international community after what he was doing before ..

So I really didn't know

[Dawud_uk]

:w: Now that's so easy for you to say because you're not Somali and thus you are not affected by the hardship going in my country. They have held Somalia captive for over 18 years now, and now these people have either drawn into Islamic factions or they're former warlords who participated in the carnage of their fellow Muslimeen and were apart of the Federal Gov't (the TFG). So please, spare me the ''mujahideen'' talk, when you yourself are sitting comfortably in your nice house not getting any calls begging for money just to make it to the next day, week, month. :rollseyes

:sl:

sister, i dont think you realise how either misguided or insulting that reply is, so as a muslimah who is somali do you never comment on current affairs in any other nation?

no of-course not, this ummah is one body, if one part gets injured the rest gets fever so i am sure you would be as concerned as i am for muslims of whatever race or culture.

if you meant i have no right to comment, or advocate a particular solution just because i am not somali then that reminds of a situation at one of my local masaajid where some brothers were handing out fliers after jummah and one somali brother said ''how dare you do this in our community?''
so the brother giving out the leaflets said ''am i not muslim?''
the somali brother then said ''yes''
the leafleting brother giving out the leaflets then said ''are you not muslim then?''
the somali brother ''YES!''
the leafleting brother then refuted him and you if this was your intention by saying ''then we are both one community, one body no matter what race.''

I understand your support, and honestly Somalis want Shar'iah, they've never been opposed to it. But they have to live through it, they have to live through seeing the situation not changing at all for them (except for about 6 months of relative peace in 2006).

sister, it is because of the awful situation in somali that they need ash-shabaab to impose shariah, shariah will bring justice and law and order just like it did under the islamic courts, just like it did in afghanistan under the taliban and look what has happened in both countries without it.

surely you must see the only what in the long run peace and security will come to somalia is through the shariah and the mujahideen fighting for it not imposed from outside by the very countries who do not want shariah nor a strong somalia?

also sister it does not matter whether the people desire shariah or not, this is not an optional extra in islam, wherever we are we need to bring in as much shariah as possible in that part of the world with the ultimate objective being the whole system.

So yes, it is nice to make the intention for hijrah. But is that really realistic when the people who ran away from their own country, and were even telling themselves that the war would only last a mere weeks, months but never this long haven't been able to go back?

i have no doubt of the difficulty of making hijrah, but i knew people who went there under the previous islamic courts administration, they knew many more and not all somali.

if it wasnt difficult the reward would be so much less but it is a matter of balance, not taking stupid risks and not being so cautious it never happens, but that doesnt stop the fact it is a fard obligation for those of us living here in darul harb.

Understand the situation, for those who were born there, who lived there for a couple of years and then moved to the West never to see their beautiful country back to the way it was....it is more than ridiculous to call what these warlords are doing as jihad and calling them ''mujahideen''.

sister, this is several times you have made this allegation, do you have any proof to show that ash shabaab are run by former warlords like many of the transitional government were?

[salafy_masry]

The Somali parliament has voted unanimously for the implementation of Sharia which is seen as good news by many in the Muslim world - and it is - as it reflects the desire of the Somali people to live by the laws of Allah.

However there are some issues that need to be highlighted. First, there is a fundamental problem with the procedure in which the decision was made. The law of Allah should not be voted over. To give the people the choice whether to apply Sharia or not reflects a fundamental problem in the understanding of Tawhid.

Allah says: But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muhammad] judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full] submission. [al Nisa 65]

So people cannot be believers until they submit to the law of Allah and accept it without any reservations. The Islamic government exists to impose Sharia rather than submit it to a vote. Therefore a government that declares that it will accept the results of a vote for Sharia, even if the results are not to implement it, is by necessity a non-Islamic government.

Second, the Sharif government is using its application of Sharia to convince the other resistance groups to lay down their arms and join the government. But from a Sharia point of view the objectives of the Jihad in Somalia have not been achieved yet and therefore the Jihad of these groups needs to carry on.

Yes, the implementation of Sharia is the most important of these objectives, however, the Sharif government cannot be seen as a valid government for three main reasons. The first: Just as it applied Sharia by a vote it could dismantle Sharia by a vote. They have not implemented Sharia as a matter of principle but because it is the will of the people and therefore the Sharif government is closer to being a democratic government than it being an Islamic one. Second: The Sharif government is still allowing the existence of a foreign invading force represented in the forces of the African Union. The Jihad in Somalia should carry on until the last AU soldier leaves the country and any forces that side with the AU -including the Sharif government- become legitimate targets. And third: The Sharif government is basing its foreign relations with the outside world on a nationalistic basis rather that an Islamic one. The support it receives from the US, the EU and the UN is a reflection of it being a tool to advance the imperialistic interests of the West and to eradicate the strong Jihad movement in the country.
Therefore, even though it is good news for the ummah that Sharia will be implemented again in Somalia but we should not see this as an end to the struggle to establish an Islamic state and community and to free the country from foreign intervention and corruption.

http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=119

[Intisar]

:sl:

sister, i dont think you realise how either misguided or insulting that reply is, so as a muslimah who is somali do you never comment on current affairs in any other nation?

How? Was there any truth to my statement? Do you get phone calls asking for money? Do you get relatives wanting to be sponsored to the West so they can live a better life, without fear of being shot in their sleep?

Even if I do only respond to Somali news, is there anything wrong with that? Does that make me a nationalist?

no of-course not, this ummah is one body, if one part gets injured the rest gets fever so i am sure you would be as concerned as i am for muslims of whatever race or culture.

I agree, and I never said the ummah isn't one body tyvm.

if you meant i have no right to comment, or advocate a particular solution just because i am not somali then that reminds of a situation at one of my local masaajid where some brothers were handing out fliers after jummah and one somali brother said ''how dare you do this in our community?''
so the brother giving out the leaflets said ''am i not muslim?''
the somali brother then said ''yes''
the leafleting brother giving out the leaflets then said ''are you not muslim then?''
the somali brother ''YES!''
the leafleting brother then refuted him and you if this was your intention by saying ''then we are both one community, one body no matter what race.''

Um no I never said you didn't have a right to comment, but rather being on the sidelines and getting your information not directly from Somali people affected by this gives you a false impression.

sister, it is because of the awful situation in somali that they need ash-shabaab to impose shariah, shariah will bring justice and law and order just like it did under the islamic courts, just like it did in afghanistan under the taliban and look what has happened in both countries without it.

Bro, the last thing they need is Al-Shabab. May Allaah grant Somalis peace they have longed for.

surely you must see the only what in the long run peace and security will come to somalia is through the shariah and the mujahideen fighting for it not imposed from outside by the very countries who do not want shariah nor a strong somalia?

Not through Al-Shabab.

also sister it does not matter whether the people desire shariah or not, this is not an optional extra in islam, wherever we are we need to bring in as much shariah as possible in that part of the world with the ultimate objective being the whole system.

Fair enough, but you were acting like Al-Shabab were a Godsend or something. You're getting it twisted, I was just trying to clarify that Somalis do want shar'iah law, and the parliament even voted on it. Their objective, Al-Shabab, was to get the Ethiopians out of our land and they did. So what's with the fighting still going on?

i have no doubt of the difficulty of making hijrah, but i knew people who went there under the previous islamic courts administration, they knew many more and not all somali.

The IUC and Al-Shabab aren't the same thing, IUC brought peace to the capital after 15 years.

if it wasnt difficult the reward would be so much less but it is a matter of balance, not taking stupid risks and not being so cautious it never happens, but that doesnt stop the fact it is a fard obligation for those of us living here in darul harb.

So your intention is to go, but you know it's impossible, especially to Somalia.

sister, this is several times you have made this allegation, do you have any proof to show that ash shabaab are run by former warlords like many of the transitional government were?

Read a bit more carefully, I said the TFG.

[Dawud_uk]

How? Was there any truth to my statement? Do you get phone calls asking for money? Do you get relatives wanting to be sponsored to the West so they can live a better life, without fear of being shot in their sleep?

Even if I do only respond to Somali news, is there anything wrong with that? Does that make me a nationalist?



I agree, and I never said the ummah isn't one body tyvm.



Um no I never said you didn't have a right to comment, but rather being on the sidelines and getting your information not directly from Somali people affected by this gives you a false impression.




Bro, the last thing they need is Al-Shabab. May Allaah grant Somalis peace they have longed for.



Not through Al-Shabab.



Fair enough, but you were acting like Al-Shabab were a Godsend or something. You're getting it twisted, I was just trying to clarify that Somalis do want shar'iah law, and the parliament even voted on it. Their objective, Al-Shabab, was to get the Ethiopians out of our land and they did. So what's with the fighting still going on?



The IUC and Al-Shabab aren't the same thing, IUC brought peace to the capital after 15 years.




So your intention is to go, but you know it's impossible, especially to Somalia.




Read a bit more carefully, I said the TFG.

assalaamu alaykum sister,

i do speak to a lot of somalis and have somali friends, i have had a somali family live in my home in the past when no one else would take them in and they were stuck living in the most jahil of kuffar areas near where i lived so i am not totally ignorant of the situation there or the dire situation of the somali people in general.

however, you almost certainly have more information than i do.

could you tell me why ash-shabaab are a bad thing? their stated intention is islamic rule, their actions are showing this in practice, yes they are likely to make mistakes along the way but i cannot see anything which would prevent my supporting them with my du'as at least?

to me i see the situation in somali continuing for a long time unless true islamic rule is established by the mujahideen, any other solution is only likely to lead to more war and more outside interference, the kuffar do not respect weakness only strength so if the somalis want to stand on their feet and end the blood shed it requires another last push to get rid of the warlords not just in southern somalia but in the whole nation there and only ash-shabaab have the will and strength to do it.

its like the ruling of ibn taymiyyah who said it is better to give money to those fighting in the path of Allah than to the poor, feeding the poor only helps with the symptoms, jihad is required to remove the cause of those problems and is better for those poor people in the long run.

[Intisar]

assalaamu alaykum sister,

however, you almost certainly have more information than i do.

:w: I have family living almost everywhere in Somalia, and I plan on going back inshaAllaah next year. So in a sense I get the news straight from the horse's mouth.

You have to understand that Somali culture is that of an oral one, our written language only really started in the 60s due to the then dictator Siyaad Barre forcing Somalis to learn how to write in their own language. People only knew how to speak it, they could recite their lineage all the way back to their patriarch, but were illiterate in terms of Somali.

My mother was forced to go into the middle of baadiyo (the country) and teach everyone how to write in English, Arabic and Italian. Because we were colonised by the Brits and Italians. She remembers this so clearly, but if you ask my grandmother about this she wouldn't even know because she speaks Somali so eloquently but cannot write in Somali.

So when it comes to the news, it's spread around orally in Somali, and if you're lucky you can call family to tell them what's been going on. That's what I meant before, many people get their sources from bbc.com, when all they do is spew propaganda as usual.

And certain Somali websites, dare I say it, have a clan bias. Except for hiiraan.com.

So if I offended you, then inshaAllaah I apologise and please forgive me for the sake of Allaah.

could you tell me why ash-shabaab are a bad thing? their stated intention is islamic rule, their actions are showing this in practice, yes they are likely to make mistakes along the way but i cannot see anything which would prevent my supporting them with my du'as at least?

The bloodshed, the carnage, the damage they've caused. It's not as if Somalia is a kufaar country, alhamdulilah we are a 99% Muslim country. But I cannot support them when so many people die, and it's usually the innocent ones from the middle of baadiyo (the country) who have no idea what's going on because they are so far removed from the rest of the people. I mean who else are they killing? The Ethiopians are gone alhamdulilah.

One thing I support about them is that they destroyed many graves. Somalis have a history of suufism, although these days the majority are sunni who follow the shafi'i madhab. Somali people tend to travel to graves of the deceased and make supplication to them, which is shirk. So alhamdulilah for that.

But when they beheaded a man, and it was put on the internet. That was just so disgusting. Apparently a murtad, went from Islam to Christianity, fled from Somalia to Kenya and they captured him and beheaded him. May Allaah forgive me if I am wrong. The video was really really disgusting subhanAllaah.

to me i see the situation in somali continuing for a long time unless true islamic rule is established by the mujahideen, any other solution is only likely to lead to more war and more outside interference, the kuffar do not respect weakness only strength so if the somalis want to stand on their feet and end the blood shed it requires another last push to get rid of the warlords not just in southern somalia but in the whole nation there and only ash-shabaab have the will and strength to do it.

Exactly, which is why I supported the IUC. They brought peace and stability to Somalia alhamdulilah, Mogadishu and people were relatively happy about that. Although some were mad that jaad was banned. Either way, it was a good time for Somalia. They even gave back homes that some of the warlords and generally bad people stole from others in Mogadishu. For ex: I was a few months old, or a year old, I don't remember, when I fled from Mogadishu in a pick up truck. My mother had told me that people had looted our house, and homes in the entire city and used feces to write on the walls that a certain clan lived there and they even raped women in the masjid. Old and elderly women for God's sake! :(

But the IUC, which at that time was lead by Shaikh Shareef, evicted those people and gave back the homes.

If Al-Shabab can follow their example, and use more peaceful tactics instead of ''kill kill kill'', the mentality they have going on right now then they will have my support.

[KAding]

The Somali parliament has voted unanimously for the implementation of Sharia which is seen as good news by many in the Muslim world - and it is - as it reflects the desire of the Somali people to live by the laws of Allah.

However there are some issues that need to be highlighted. First, there is a fundamental problem with the procedure in which the decision was made. The law of Allah should not be voted over. To give the people the choice whether to apply Sharia or not reflects a fundamental problem in the understanding of Tawhid.

Allah says: But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muhammad] judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full] submission. [al Nisa 65]

So people cannot be believers until they submit to the law of Allah and accept it without any reservations. The Islamic government exists to impose Sharia rather than submit it to a vote. Therefore a government that declares that it will accept the results of a vote for Sharia, even if the results are not to implement it, is by necessity a non-Islamic government.

Second, the Sharif government is using its application of Sharia to convince the other resistance groups to lay down their arms and join the government. But from a Sharia point of view the objectives of the Jihad in Somalia have not been achieved yet and therefore the Jihad of these groups needs to carry on.

Yes, the implementation of Sharia is the most important of these objectives, however, the Sharif government cannot be seen as a valid government for three main reasons. The first: Just as it applied Sharia by a vote it could dismantle Sharia by a vote. They have not implemented Sharia as a matter of principle but because it is the will of the people and therefore the Sharif government is closer to being a democratic government than it being an Islamic one. Second: The Sharif government is still allowing the existence of a foreign invading force represented in the forces of the African Union. The Jihad in Somalia should carry on until the last AU soldier leaves the country and any forces that side with the AU -including the Sharif government- become legitimate targets. And third: The Sharif government is basing its foreign relations with the outside world on a nationalistic basis rather that an Islamic one. The support it receives from the US, the EU and the UN is a reflection of it being a tool to advance the imperialistic interests of the West and to eradicate the strong Jihad movement in the country.
Therefore, even though it is good news for the ummah that Sharia will be implemented again in Somalia but we should not see this as an end to the struggle to establish an Islamic state and community and to free the country from foreign intervention and corruption.

http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=119

Wow, with such reasons this conflict could take a long time still. Since it basically boil down to 'we want the same as they do, but we don't trust them'.

I also like the 'our Sha'ria is better, because we don't seek public support' argument! Clearly pragmatism isn't one of their strong points ;).

[KAding]

a mujahid is one who fights in the path of Allah, fighting to make Allah's deen most high. do you not think this is the intention of ash-shahab?

have they not consistantly fought the enemies of Allah, the secularists, the warlords, the ethiopians, the AU forces?

are you saying they are not mujahideen, if so why do they not fight for Allah, if you believe they do not or do you have a different definition of mujahid to mine?

They are fighting other Muslims now though, Muslims that even profess that they want to implement Sha'riah law. So I don't understand how they can be Mujaheddin if they are fighting and killing fellow Muslims :hmm:.

[Trumble]

are you saying they are not mujahideen, if so why do they not fight for Allah, if you believe they do not or do you have a different definition of mujahid to mine?"

As usual, they fight for themselves and to force their will on others , not 'for Allah'. Religion is just the excuse and the 'mujahadeen' label for the gullible.

[Dawud_uk]

:w: I have family living almost everywhere in Somalia, and I plan on going back inshaAllaah next year. So in a sense I get the news straight from the horse's mouth.

You have to understand that Somali culture is that of an oral one, our written language only really started in the 60s due to the then dictator Siyaad Barre forcing Somalis to learn how to write in their own language. People only knew how to speak it, they could recite their lineage all the way back to their patriarch, but were illiterate in terms of Somali.

My mother was forced to go into the middle of baadiyo (the country) and teach everyone how to write in English, Arabic and Italian. Because we were colonised by the Brits and Italians. She remembers this so clearly, but if you ask my grandmother about this she wouldn't even know because she speaks Somali so eloquently but cannot write in Somali.

So when it comes to the news, it's spread around orally in Somali, and if you're lucky you can call family to tell them what's been going on. That's what I meant before, many people get their sources from bbc.com, when all they do is spew propaganda as usual.

And certain Somali websites, dare I say it, have a clan bias. Except for hiiraan.com.

So if I offended you, then inshaAllaah I apologise and please forgive me for the sake of Allaah.



The bloodshed, the carnage, the damage they've caused. It's not as if Somalia is a kufaar country, alhamdulilah we are a 99% Muslim country. But I cannot support them when so many people die, and it's usually the innocent ones from the middle of baadiyo (the country) who have no idea what's going on because they are so far removed from the rest of the people. I mean who else are they killing? The Ethiopians are gone alhamdulilah.

One thing I support about them is that they destroyed many graves. Somalis have a history of suufism, although these days the majority are sunni who follow the shafi'i madhab. Somali people tend to travel to graves of the deceased and make supplication to them, which is shirk. So alhamdulilah for that.

But when they beheaded a man, and it was put on the internet. That was just so disgusting. Apparently a murtad, went from Islam to Christianity, fled from Somalia to Kenya and they captured him and beheaded him. May Allaah forgive me if I am wrong. The video was really really disgusting subhanAllaah.



Exactly, which is why I supported the IUC. They brought peace and stability to Somalia alhamdulilah, Mogadishu and people were relatively happy about that. Although some were mad that jaad was banned. Either way, it was a good time for Somalia. They even gave back homes that some of the warlords and generally bad people stole from others in Mogadishu. For ex: I was a few months old, or a year old, I don't remember, when I fled from Mogadishu in a pick up truck. My mother had told me that people had looted our house, and homes in the entire city and used feces to write on the walls that a certain clan lived there and they even raped women in the masjid. Old and elderly women for God's sake! :(

But the IUC, which at that time was lead by Shaikh Shareef, evicted those people and gave back the homes.

If Al-Shabab can follow their example, and use more peaceful tactics instead of ''kill kill kill'', the mentality they have going on right now then they will have my support.

sister i was aware of the oral traditions of the somalis, so as you can see i am not totally ignorant of your culture! as someone who takes hijrah very seriously i learn as much about a culture as i can so inshallah i know as much as i can before i leap.

as for the beheading, it might look harsh but this is from the deen of islam, we all know the ruling on killing an apostate and such punishments should be carried out publicly to give deterence to others. in the past this would mean the market square in the biggest city, today that means TV and internet. each serves as a deterence to others.

now i think the one thing we can agree upon is that somalia is a mess with clan fighting clan all over the place, now how exactly do you end these clan militias, these bandits and gangsters and warlords if they wont listen to reason and put up their arms? the only way is jihad.

jihad to bring these towns and villages into compliance so the graves can be levelled, the jahil customs challenged by the da'ee and peace restored. but it often requires violence to bring them into compliance first if they wont listen when the words of the Quran and sunnah are recited to them. how is it going to be possible to establish shariah if not by violence sometimes? remember just is individually we have no choice but to submit to Allah, each town or village has no choice but to submit to the shariah.

why do you feel sheikh sharif is the UIC as it was then and ash-shabaab not? remember ash-shabaab were part of the islamic courts, as was hisbul islam, sheikh sharif was only one leader amongst many and others have apposed him and his democracy and sucking up to the ethiopians, why have they done this?

finally, why is sheikh sharif president just because some kufr UN supported meeting involving the very people behind the transitional govt and others, many secularists supported him in a democratic election?

why does this man, whose selection by a non islamic body get to be amir when he controls only a few blocks of the capital, came late once the ethiopians were expelled and where as ash-shabaab and hisbul islam which control far more of the country and capital, have done all the fighting, and have their own leaders chosen through shura not democracy?

[nocturnal]

As usual, they fight for themselves and to force their will on others , not 'for Allah'. Religion is just the excuse and the 'mujahadeen' label for the gullible.

We can discuss whether the methodology they are employing is right or wrong, that certainly is open to scrutiny. But these people are fighting for an unquestionable declared objective, which is NOT the implementation of Sharia, because preisdent Sheikh Shariff has already done that, they are fighting for the expulsion of AU forces from the country.

That is what has caused the schism between those in government and those opposing it. Its not an ideological battle; it stems from the fact that Sheikh Shariff's administration has hitherto deemed it permissible to have these forces in the country.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

[QUOTE=nocturnal;1146978] the implementation of Sharia, because preisdent Sheikh Shariff has already done that, they are fighting for the expulsion of AU forces from the country.

QUOTE]

They say that to the Somalis at home. But when they speak on western media outlets they claim that their sharia will not conflict with Western secularism. The "president" was quoted on western media as saying that Somalis did not need to change the constituion as the country was already muslim. The Prime Minister also told reporters in Ethiopia that they wouldn't be using the extremists methods such as chopping of hands for stealing and other hudood. So, I think it is bit of an exaggeration to claim that Shariff has introduced Sharia or accepted it entirely. Instead, what he has done is to desperately try to please the demands Somali Muslims and the UN/AU/USA at the same time. This is what he also done when he ignored the demands of the scholars to remove the AU troops. Personally, I believe he is not doing this out of hatred or dislike of Sharia or Islam, but he probably sincerely believes he can bring peace to Somalia and alievate the suffering of the people in this manner. However, all he is doing is confusing himself and confusinfg the SOmalis. This is even obvious to western observors, including Dr. Michael A. Weinstein, Professor of Political Science, Purdue University:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sharp contrast to Al-Shabaab’s revolutionary and A.R.S.-A’s resistance postures, both of which fall within received modern paradigms, Sh. Sharif’s reformism is reactive, purposively vague, and seemingly expedient. In his letter to Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke requesting that the cabinet adopt Shari’ah, Sh. Sharif reportedly wrote that the action was necessary to forestall “prolonged fights,” a justification that he later repeated at press conferences and in addresses. Caught between having to satisfy his clerical and clan bases, both of which favor implementation of Shari’ah, and the donor powers on which the T.F.G. is dependent financially, and which favor a secular government, Sh. Sharif, gave way to the former, but tried to mollify the latter.

Sh. Sharif’s brand of impromptu reformism emerged at a press conference in Nairobi on March 12, where he began with the assurance that the Shari’ah that he had in mind for Somalia was not the strict version forwarded by Al-Shabaab, but a more modern variant that would allow women to serve in parliament (an issue raised by the armed opposition) and an acceptance of democracy, which he said “is not inherently against Islam.”

As a compromise formation precipitated from the cross-pressures of base and donors, Sh. Sharif’s Islamic Reformism is the weakest of the ideological contenders by virtue of its transparent use of political Islam as a means to the end of saving the T.F.G. and its resulting vagueness.

[Maryan0]

al shabaab are also somali muslim people and i really wish they would join the peace process like they were invited to do. maybe if all the somali factions were united among themselves we wouldn't need amisom, the ethiopians and eritrians. expecting everything to happen at once is very unrealistic especially with a country like somalia. why doesn't anybody think of the people?
continuous bloodshed benefits nobody and causes greater enmity and i think somalis have seen enough of that.
i'd hate to be some of these people on the last day.
salam

[nocturnal]

There is nothing vague or dubious about Sheikh Shariff's reformism. He has undertaken the action of implementation of Sharia because that is what is in accord with the masses who have suffered unimaginably for almost two decades.

Also, a bit of common sense would make clear that Sheikh Shariff was a key figure in the Islamic Courts and given his clean reputation, it is scarcely credible to believe that he would institute any policies that are anti-Islamic.

You should not demonize him for his earnest efforts to restore peace to this war-ravaged nation.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

There is nothing vague or dubious about Sheikh Shariff's reformism. He has undertaken the action of implementation of Sharia because that is what is in accord with the masses who have suffered unimaginably for almost two decades.

Also, a bit of common sense would make clear that Sheikh Shariff was a key figure in the Islamic Courts and given his clean reputation, it is scarcely credible to believe that he would institute any policies that are anti-Islamic.

You should not demonize him for his earnest efforts to restore peace to this war-ravaged nation.

akhi, no one has demonised him. Everything I said is out in the open public.Believing someone is earnest or nice, means nothing, if they act contrary to what they state from their tongue. The first thing the man said when he got elected was that he would crush "extremists". What is so peaceful about that? He has recently recalled all the warlords( the ones he defeated in 2006) and they are infact leading his war effort. Again, what is so peaceful about that? Ethiopian troops are also back in the country, apparently with his governments collusion.And, yes, he has made contradictory statements on the issue of sharia, as well as his refusal to order out the African troops which, by the way he currently ordering to shell Somali civilians. The professor is right when he claims the man is torn between serving the interests and demands of his backers(US/AU, etc.) or the SOmali, Muslim people.

[nocturnal]

akhi, no one has demonised him. Everything I said is out in the open public.Believing someone is earnest or nice, means nothing, if they act contrary to what they state from their tongue. The first thing the man said when he got elected was that he would crush "extremists". What is so peaceful about that? He has recently recalled all the warlords( the ones he defeated in 2006) and they are infact leading his war effort. Again, what is so peaceful about that? Ethiopian troops are also back in the country, apparently with his governments collusion.And, yes, he has made contradictory statements on the issue of sharia, as well as his refusal to order out the African troops which, by the way he currently ordering to shell Somali civilians. The professor is right when he claims the man is torn between serving the interests and demands of his backers(US/AU, etc.) or the SOmali, Muslim people.

We need to set the record straight, resistance to ethiopian/american occupation and hegemony is one thing, but trying to reign in the likes of Al Shabaab, and draw them into the political process is another. Sheikh Shariff has not recalled the warlords he defeated in 2006, it his the supporters and military wing of the Islamic courts that is supporting him.

He hasn't staunchly defended AU troops in Somalia the way you are suggesting, but you can understand why he is a little hesitant to expel them given the impending collapse of his administration. If Al Shabaab however, took part in reconciliatory engagement with his government, then after working on a credible model for redevelopment and stability, they could concurrently set a timetable for AU withdrawal.

There is nothing to suggest that Sheikh Shariff is an American proxy, the previous TFG with Abdullahi Yusuf i concur was an abhorrent and callous government, we need to support this one.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

akhi,let us agree to disagree, since you are not willing to accept facts.

[Maryan0]

[QUOTE=nocturnal;1147508]
He hasn't staunchly defended AU troops in Somalia the way you are suggesting, but you can understand why he is a little hesitant to expel them given the impending collapse of his administration. If Al Shabaab however, took part in reconciliatory engagement with his government, then after working on a credible model for redevelopment and stability, they could concurrently set a timetable for AU withdrawal.
QUOTE]
exactly, but nobodies willing to think ahead.
the actions of certain somalis whether bad or good have brought somalia to the state it is today, not the ethiopians, not the eritrians, not amisom and not whoever else people want to scapegoat, somalia's conflict is an old one and reconciliation instead of fighting is the best route to go.

salam

[nocturnal]

[QUOTE=Lisa0;1147681]

He hasn't staunchly defended AU troops in Somalia the way you are suggesting, but you can understand why he is a little hesitant to expel them given the impending collapse of his administration. If Al Shabaab however, took part in reconciliatory engagement with his government, then after working on a credible model for redevelopment and stability, they could concurrently set a timetable for AU withdrawal.
QUOTE]
exactly, but nobodies willing to think ahead.
the actions of certain somalis whether bad or good have brought somalia to the state it is today, not the ethiopians, not the eritrians, not amisom and not whoever else people want to scapegoat, somalia's conflict is an old one and reconciliation instead of fighting is the best route to go.

salam

I agree totally. I think Insha'Allah that will happen; perhaps its one of these things where people only realise the most viable option when all else has been exhausted. Somalia has pretty much in the last two decades reached its nadir, and sooner or later, this whole fractious system of clan-based politics and militias will end and Somalia will prosper. The people have persevered alot and deserve nothing less than peace and harmony.

[Dawud_uk]

[QUOTE=nocturnal;1147902]

I agree totally. I think Insha'Allah that will happen; perhaps its one of these things where people only realise the most viable option when all else has been exhausted. Somalia has pretty much in the last two decades reached its nadir, and sooner or later, this whole fractious system of clan-based politics and militias will end and Somalia will prosper. The people have persevered alot and deserve nothing less than peace and harmony.

head in the clouds optimism, so your argument is let things be and they'll sort them selves out?

ash-shabaab have a plan to stop all the fighting, simply take away the guns from the clan based militias, either peacefully if they agree or forcefully from their dead fingers.

this is how this war will end, why would these clan leaders give us their power otherwise? it makes no sense for them to do so, they have everything they want now.

so to bring in shariah, to force out the kuffar forces, which would bring a final peace to the somali conflict, the only way is jihad.

[Maryan0]

[QUOTE=Dawud_uk;1147915]

head in the clouds optimism, so your argument is let things be and they'll sort them selves out?

ash-shabaab have a plan to stop all the fighting, simply take away the guns from the clan based militias, either peacefully if they agree or forcefully from their dead fingers.

this is how this war will end, why would these clan leaders give us their power otherwise? it makes no sense for them to do so, they have everything they want now.

so to bring in shariah, to force out the kuffar forces, which would bring a final peace to the somali conflict, the only way is jihad.

very unrealistic, so is your argument let muslims continue to kill each other and everything will be sorted out eventually never mind the deaths of innocents caught in the crossfire. i really hate when people disregard the deaths of civilians, the ends never justify the means, you sound like george bush and his cronies putting up an argumnet like that, the only difference is that he was a kufar who was killing muslim people and your a muslim justifying the killing of muslim people .
nobody cares about al shabaabs plans, and the last time i checked al shabaab were the ones with the guns and al shabaab were the ones using their guns to kill people. I wonder when the blood of innocent muslims became halal? who are these people fighting for and who do they represent?they don't represent me neither do they represent the vast majority of somalis.
again al shabaab would at least have some basis for their fighting if Sheik Sharif left them out of the peace process. but he has repeatedly asked for them to join and they have repeatedly chosen to ignore him.they have an agenda and i doubt it's islam.
"he doesn't want to implement the shariah properly" doesn't justify the unrest in somalia as of late caused by al shabaab and the hundreds of people that have died, neither does that argument justify the killing of other muslim people.
to fight a muslim government you have to have a stronger excuse than that and even then it has to be a last resort.
salam

[KAding]

so to bring in shariah, to force out the kuffar forces, which would bring a final peace to the somali conflict, the only way is jihad.

But I still don't understand. In your opinion, is or isn't it haram to wage a jihad against fellow Muslims who profess the oneness of Allah and who say they want to implement Sha'ria law?

I mean, I understand the complexity of the situation, but am I understanding right that you think that support from the African Union for the president is what trumps this general rule that Muslims can't fight and kill other Muslims? On what basis exactly? Is your position that the current Somali president and his soldiers are in fact apostates and because of that valid targets for a jihad?

[Dahir]

The war there is far from over, but Dawud is right, the Shabaab have done a great job in governing the regions under their control.

To fully agree with them or not is a personal issue, but my father always said, "I will back the side that promises to cleanse Somalia using the Quran" and by all means Al-Shabaab have won me over with their basic premise.

[nocturnal]

Dawud, Al Shabaab must come to the realisation that the reality on the ground has changed. This is no longer resistance against an American proxy occupation.

Sheikh Shariff has made repeated and earnest requests for Al Shabaab to join the politial process, to work with the government instead of against it. Al Shaabab conversely, is ruthlessly forging ahead, oblivious to the plight of innocent civilians in its over-zealous bid to unseat Sheikh Shariff, take Mogadishu and introduce a purged administration that is anything but pluralistic, and infact more akin to the Mugabe government, and whose ranks are filled with unqualified militants who would be better used if integrated into a new armed forces.

Where precisely is there precedent and justification for this sort of action in Islamic history?, where Muslims, who only a few months ago, were fighting together against a common enemy, are now massacring their own brothers and sisters indiscriminately.

I see no reasonable justification whatsoever in Al Shabaabs actions and how anyone can conceiveably defend them. Do they have a mandate from the people? has Sheikh Shariff not got broad popular support of the somali people and UN backing? has he enacted any legislation whatsoever that runs contrary to the precepts and principles espoused by Al Shabaab and more importantly, against Islam? Was he not a senior figure in the ICU which brought stability and peace to Somalia in the most ephemeral of reigns; 6 months?

What then is the justification for Al Shabaab to engage in this uncontrolled bloodletting, and not join the political process and work for the resettlement of the massive numbers of IDPs?

Caught up in their own illusory visions, they are neglecting the most basic of Islamic tenets, the welfare of their own people. This is what it amounts to.

[Dawud_uk]

Dawud, Al Shabaab must come to the realisation that the reality on the ground has changed. This is no longer resistance against an American proxy occupation.

Sheikh Shariff has made repeated and earnest requests for Al Shabaab to join the politial process, to work with the government instead of against it. Al Shaabab conversely, is ruthlessly forging ahead, oblivious to the plight of innocent civilians in its over-zealous bid to unseat Sheikh Shariff, take Mogadishu and introduce a purged administration that is anything but pluralistic, and infact more akin to the Mugabe government, and whose ranks are filled with unqualified militants who would be better used if integrated into a new armed forces.

Where precisely is there precedent and justification for this sort of action in Islamic history?, where Muslims, who only a few months ago, were fighting together against a common enemy, are now massacring their own brothers and sisters indiscriminately.

I see no reasonable justification whatsoever in Al Shabaabs actions and how anyone can conceiveably defend them. Do they have a mandate from the people? has Sheikh Shariff not got broad popular support of the somali people and UN backing? has he enacted any legislation whatsoever that runs contrary to the precepts and principles espoused by Al Shabaab and more importantly, against Islam? Was he not a senior figure in the ICU which brought stability and peace to Somalia in the most ephemeral of reigns; 6 months?

What then is the justification for Al Shabaab to engage in this uncontrolled bloodletting, and not join the political process and work for the resettlement of the massive numbers of IDPs?

Caught up in their own illusory visions, they are neglecting the most basic of Islamic tenets, the welfare of their own people. This is what it amounts to.

support of the somali people? you mean that sham election of tribal leaders and warlords who voted him in? as if democracy is permissable in islam anyway? many of the very same people by the way who made up the transitional government of the murtad Abdullahi Yusuf.

but it actually doesnt matter whether the somali people support him or not, i remember reading about one of the governors seeing umar ibn al khattab and umar ibn al khattab asking if the people liked him, the governor said yes, so umar ibn al khattab said he couldnt be doing his job correctly.

the reverse isnt always true of-course, but shariah if implemented properly isnt always going to be popular, but it is just and that is the important thing.

what has pluralistic got to do with anything? if someone is worshipping the dead you stop him, there is no compromise, if someone steals and there are no contributing factors in his favour then his hand is cut off, there are no other valid opinions on these matters and many others, there is no room for being pluralistic in such matters.

pluralistic and understanding in salaat differences etc yes, but pluralistic with people like sheikh sharif who has two faces, one for the people saying he also wants shariah and another for his western paymasters telling them his shariah will not even contain the huddud.

now you compare the mujahideen to mugabee and crew, how dare you? let each of us make a dua you and i now, that Allah raises you up with the two faced president sharif and the transitional government, and the AU goons and secularists and that Allah raises me up with ash-shabaab and other mujahideen, can you say ameen to that dua?

[Sampharo]

I do not mean to interfere in the political debate. I am not good at it, and don't know much about it. However a few Islamic misconceptions have been flung around here and I think I would like to address them so as to protect brothers and sisters from misguidance:

1-

Allah says: But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, [O Muhammad] judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full] submission. [al Nisa 65]

So people cannot be believers until they submit to the law of Allah and accept it without any reservations. The Islamic government exists to impose Sharia rather than submit it to a vote. Therefore a government that declares that it will accept the results of a vote for Sharia, even if the results are not to implement it, is by necessity a non-Islamic government.

This is by and large the biggest load of hogwash and farthest length of Ta'weel I have seen in a long time! I do not know this Imam, but this opinion is completely misguided! It is loading a meaning on to a Quran verse which it did not have, and further uses conclusions to arrive at takfeer and declaring muslim people as apostates which is forbidden. This verse was about the prophet and his special standing as a judge between the people, in that when the prophet judged in a dispute for Zubeir and another man, he ruled for Zubeir and his opponent thought and said that the prophet -pbuh- favoured Zubeir and wanted to "appeal" the messenger's decision. So this verse came down to affirm THAT, to accept the prophet's rulings when he judges amongst people. Has NOTHING to do with government.

Regardless of that, Shura (consultation and majority opinion) has been commanded by the prophet, so there's nothing wrong with deliberation and discussion and taking a vote to see what the opinion is, especially if management is put in hands of many. Further more the prophet -pbuh- always instructed his emissiries and later his governors to apply things gradually. It is a victory to Islam that Shariah gets voted in, but to twist the situation like that seems to me nothing more than a politically motivated opinion to get more fighting and bloodshed amongst muslims. The prophet stated that as long as people declared God is one and prayed and paid zakat, he had no right to shed their blood. On what basis now is a government that even applied Shariah, is to be submitted to Jihad?

2- This logic is also scarred and forces arrogant authority that normal people do not have. A community soverign leader is a rightful leader and cannot be called kafir or apostate or revolted against unless he declares himself so or carries acts of clear dictated apostacy, which is to stop prayer or deny the five pillars of Islam, or grave detrimental corruption. The Imam has the right to call for vote, deliberations, or whatever is required to manage the country. Mutiny against leadership based on disagreement with policy or approach, even if one seems more righteous, is not permissible. Otherwise no society will ever function, as there will be a revolt whenever a group of misguided unknowledgable people wanting to force their will and their way upon the whole community object to the leader doing what another group of people think is more righteous. No leader can function, and even Uthman Ibn Affan one of the close companions and predestined to be in paradise, was sieged and later assassinated under such misguidedness. Their claim was that he was corrupt because he allegedly got his own herds of camel at watered at the public watering holes and practiced nepotism which is against Shariah. Despite Ali Ibn Abi Taleb defending him and clarifying that the nepotism was only towards the prophet's family (who became his since he married into it) and it was dictated by the prophet to be good to them and favour them, and the watering holes and wells were a charity that was opened and maintained by Uthman's own money and it was permissible for him to let his own camels drink there, some misguided bloodthirsty were still stuck to their minds. Same corrupt bloodthirsty approach is being introduced here. May God give justice and guidance to all.

3- The Muslim World greatest Imams of past and present, worked and studied to find answers to items that came up and did not have clear dictation in Shariah. Apostacy and Kufr does NOT fall into this category. With all due respect to the studies and standing of any who claim to be imam or sheikh or to those who quote them, no sheikh or imam has right to change dictated Islamic principals. Islamic principals say that no one should and could call someone else by apostacy without that person declaring it upon himself, or denying one of the pillars of Islam or tenets of faith. Any other acts that are associated with in hadith or quran verses with disbelief, are just that, disbelief, something between that person and God. Even Umar Ibn Al-Khattab was amongst them for a while when the prophet said once: "None of you truly believes unless he loves God and his messenger more than his family and himself" to which Umar -ra- said "I truly love you oh dear prophet more than my parents and my children, but how do I love someone more than I love myself. I have to be honest and say I love myself most," to which the prophet said "not until you do Umar" and Umar sat and thought for a while, apparently arriving at the understanding that the glorious prophet is our salvation and without him we would have been with our children in Hell (conjecture), anyway Umar smiled and then looked to the prophet and said "Yes, now I do, and by God I love you more than I love myself". Clearly the disbelief suggested here did not take Umar into kufr even temporarily.

4- The blood of a muslim is shed only on declared kufr or apostacy, adultery after marriage, or murder of another. All three needs to be applied by judge and executioner. So whatever those people say about the behaviour of another people, it does not warrant declaring kufr. Be angry, stand against it, speak against it in truth, and fight the mushrekeen, but just like full blown hypocrits who used to talk and help mushrekeen openly in the days of the prophet -pbuh-, still were not attacked and killed by the prophet or his companions, like Abdullah Ibn Saloul, when he time and time again left the battlefield before multiple ghazawat with many other hipocrits and weakened the muslims army that was fighting clear mushrekean, or sent information to warn them time and time again against the muslim tactics and movements, the prophet did not kill them.

Similarly, killing an apostate needs to be a properly prepared clean execution, and requires the local majistrate to lock him up and feed him sparingly for three days (according to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, one month at least according to Ali Ibn Abi Talib) every day being asked to repent and a knowledgable person debating with him trying to clear any doubts the apostate might have. Also apostacy rule cannot be applied on a harby situation (person in non-islamic rule), it requires the person to be under Islamic rule. Moreover, the execution needs to be in a clean way, and not render the body under acts of Tamtheel or mutilation. So going after an apostate in Kenya and beheading him on video without order from appointed judge or applying the repentence duration is a hideous ugly thing and has nothing to do with Islamic Shariah and its civilized.

IN the end, Sharia was brought to organize society into an enlightened civilized community, and was introduced gradually, and as per the order of the prophet sparing bloodshed if possible was paramount. The prophet said: "I was ordered to fight people until they declare God is one, and hold the prayer and pay zakat. If they do, they have protect their blood and money from me." Additionally every verse in the Quran that speaks of jihad and fighting says to STOP FIGHTING THE MOMENT THE OPPONENTS YIELD TO PEACE. This was in fighting mushrekeen, so how much more prioity should it be when it is with other muslims?! Maybe the leader was corrupt when he used or allowed foreign troops in, or maybe he was fooled. Maybe he truly needs to be changed, but that does not necessarily mean that all out mutiny and the blood and honor of every muslim who lives between the angry ones and this leader gets shed! And does not mean that one group by the power of the weapon will submit the whole country to their claim simply because they say they want Shariah and are shouting that every one else is an apostate. As a matter of fact, as per the hadith "Whomever calls a brother a kafir, then he should be so in truth or else it(declaration of kufr) will fall upon the caller."

And as for supporting them as muslim brothers, the prophet said in a clear authentic Sahih hadith: "Aid your brothers whether they are aggressed upon or they are aggressors." to which the companions exclaimed "we will support them and aid them of course if they are aggressed upon, but how can we do that if they are the aggressors (further showing the companions finding something greatly wrong with supporting muslims if they are aggressors, that they felt it important to exclaim to the prophet, something most usually they do not do out of respect)" and the prophet said "by preventing them from their aggression." It is obvious that this relates to muslims against non-muslims, so how would you not apply that when it's muslims against their own brethren muslims in their own country. If you want to support Shabab and Pakistan Taliban, do so by making dua to God to give them guidance and stop them from their transgressions, and by telling them and their supporters in their faces what wrong they are doing. The prophet said one of the highest levels of jihad is a word of righteousness against a transgressing king.

And God knows best and may he always make us see righteousness as such and help us to follow it, and Dhalal as such and help us to avoid it. May all of us be granted guidance in these confusing and interesting times.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

quote Samapharo:This verse was about the prophet and his special standing as a judge between the people, in that when the prophet judged in a dispute for Zubeir and another man, he ruled for Zubeir and his opponent thought and said that the prophet -pbuh- favoured Zubeir and wanted to "appeal" the messenger's decision. So this verse came down to affirm THAT, to accept the prophet's rulings when he judges amongst people. Has NOTHING to do with government.


Brother, some( in fact many) ayats in the Quran were revealed due to particular incidents, but, nevertheless, they are still binding upon all muminin until the day of reckoning as general commands. The Ayats priors to this one talk about the neccesity of refering all dispute, whether in government, the household, the tribe, financial law, or any other for that matter, to the Quran and the Sunnah. So, the verdicts of the Prophet have to be accepted just as that man had to accept his verdict when he was alive.

Allah says in the Ayat prior to that:

And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger).

Ibn Kathir says in his http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=11529 tafsir :

Mujahid and several others among the Salaf said that the Ayah means, "(Refer) to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.'' This is a command from Allah that whatever areas the people dispute about, whether major or minor areas of the religion, they are required to refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment concerning these disputes. In another Ayah, Allah said,

And:

Allah chastises those who claim to believe in what Allah has sent down to His Messenger and to the earlier Prophets, yet they refer to other than the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger for judgment in various disputes. It was reported that the reason behind revealing this Ayah was that a man from the Ansar and a Jew had a dispute, and the Jew said, "Let us refer to Muhammad to judge between us.'' However, the Muslim man said, "Let us refer to Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf (a Jew) to judge between us.'' It was also reported that the Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who pretended to be Muslims, yet they sought to refer to the judgment of Jahiliyyah. Other reasons were also reported behind the revelation of the Ayah. However, the Ayah has a general meaning, as it chastises all those who refrain from referring to the Qur'an and Sunnah for judgment and prefer the judgment of whatever they chose of falsehood, which befits the description of Taghut here

And he also says:

Allah swears by His Glorious, Most Honorable Self, that no one shall attain faith until he refers to the Messenger for judgment in all matters. Thereafter, whatever the Messenger commands, is the plain truth that must be submitted to inwardly and outwardly.

So, although the ayat was revealed due to a particular case, it still means that Muslims, in all ages, should refer all judgements and arguments to the Quran and Sunnah. This applies to all disputes in governance or any other issue.

[nocturnal]

When i say pluralism, im not talking about changing divine decrees in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). I mean it purely in the sense of the administration of the country and the provision of public services.

There have been numerous polls conducted and although Sheikh Shariff was not elected in a general election, he was elected by clan elders who represent vast, sprawling constituencies and more over, these elders were an intrinsic part of the resistance to the Ethiopian occupation and were amongst the first clamouring for their expulsion and the subsequent implementation of Sharia. There is no dispute there.

But you're making fatuous and ludicrous arguements here trying to associate Sheikh Shariff's administration with the TFG. This administration is not the TFG that preceded it and do not mislead people into thinking it is when the facts are in stark contrast to all these patently ridiculous and fictitious claims you're making.

I refuse to believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible, Hamas was democratically elected on a platform that was solely based on continuing the resistance according to their interpretation of Islam, and administering Gaza accordingly as well. The fact that they were democratically elected, does that in any way diminsh the ardent passion they have for Islam and somehow signify that they've adopted a secular approach?

Its easy for you to sit in Leicester and spew grandiose statements without actually adducing any credible evidence to back it up? Sheikh Shariff even went so far as to entrust the implementation of Sharia to the Justice Ministry to which he is ready to appoint figures from Al Shabaab should they choose to engage with his nascent government. Again, what was the response from these undeterred lunatics? to launch a full onslaught on Mogadishu in the process killing countless civilians. 200 in the past month alone.

Are these the type of strategies you support as being Islamic and in accord with the Islamic laws of engagement?, which by the way if adhered to scrupulously, would arguably prohibit Al Shabaab from attempting to overthrow Sheikh Shariff's government anyway. These people are in no way different from the rank barbarians in Pakistan who cannot even observe a ceasefire and are marauding towards the capital like medieval vandals in search of plunder and the chance to enrich themselves.

Do not get me wrong, i totally detest western policies towards the Muslim world and i absolutely support legitimate resistance, e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood etc. But in no way can i see any rationale in the methodology and broadly speaking, objectives of Al Shabaab.

[Sampharo]

Dear Omar,

Please don't misunderstand me or put words in my mouth that I did not say. I specifically study to make sure I mean what I say. I did not say anything regarding the verse not being applicable later on after the prophet passed away or that they extend beyond the specific incident. As I said "This verse was about the prophet and his special standing as a judge between the people". So yes, the prophet standing is not as a person, but as God's prophet, and that his judgement and that of Islam needs to be accepted wholeheartedly.

What I refer to as Ta'weel and hogwash is to use that and attach it on the government vote and claim that as discomfort, then take the discomfort and start building on that a couple of argumentative layers to specifically arrive at Takfir muslims or declaring it as a reason to go to war. If they are so righteous and wish to follow the Quran, then without reservation they should obey Waleyy Al-Amr as long as they say they're muslims and hold the prayers, that they should immediately go to peace talks if their opponents desist attacks, that they do not fight until there is an Amir to declare the Jihad and control it, and to fight in a single unit following his orders. Most importantly not to cause casualties in civilian lives and their property. That is Islam.

Taking that single verse, turn it around, build a couple of layers to say in the end that some people are "unislamic", is Ta'weel, and accusing them of being apostates and kuffar is Takfir. No true believer does that as STATED (no Ta'weel on this one) in hadith and sunnah without having that call and description being reflected back on them "whomever throws on another a call of Kufr, it returns back and applies on him, unless the other was truly one." and "truly one" means that he did what is stated in Islamic principals to be the acts or declarations leading to Kufr. Deliberation, hesitation, or even weak faith or belief, is not apostacy that warrants haphazard people to raise arms and shed blood. Agreed upon by all scholars and real Imams whether that imam likes it or not.

Otherwise, we will start hearing about imams who want to kill all secretaries and assistants in the World, because they consistently lie as per their bosses orders regarding that the managers are busy when they're not, as per the Hadith when the prophet was asked "Would a muslim steal?" the prophet replied "He could," and then he was asked "Would a muslim commit adultery?" the prophet replied "He could," and then he was asked "Would a muslim lie?" the prophet replied "No." The same kind of logic can be used here to build multiple argumentative layers to make liers by necessity, kufar, and have to be separated from their spouses. Then another would condemn their spouses to stoning for "adultery after marriage" considering they knew their spouses lied and did not separate from them.

I apologise of course for the coarse example that might be construed as redicule of scholars or something, but of course it is not, I am studying to become one myself. I think it was necessary however to explain how twisted things can become under such logic. Islam was sent and everything in it was clear and everything was applied in the days of the prophet and his companions to show the example of what people should be doing, and the prophet nor his companions never went around accusing muslim tribes with kufr and fighting them unless they broke away from Islam's, declared they no longer were worshipping God, denied one of the pillars of Islam.

[Dawud_uk]

I do not mean to interfere in the political debate. I am not good at it, and don't know much about it....

your argument was good and correct up to this point but unfortunately went downhill afterwards.

[Dawud_uk]

When i say pluralism, im not talking about changing divine decrees in the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). I mean it purely in the sense of the administration of the country and the provision of public services.

There have been numerous polls conducted and although Sheikh Shariff was not elected in a general election, he was elected by clan elders who represent vast, sprawling constituencies and more over, these elders were an intrinsic part of the resistance to the Ethiopian occupation and were amongst the first clamouring for their expulsion and the subsequent implementation of Sharia. There is no dispute there.

But you're making fatuous and ludicrous arguements here trying to associate Sheikh Shariff's administration with the TFG. This administration is not the TFG that preceded it and do not mislead people into thinking it is when the facts are in stark contrast to all these patently ridiculous and fictitious claims you're making.

I refuse to believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible, Hamas was democratically elected on a platform that was solely based on continuing the resistance according to their interpretation of Islam, and administering Gaza accordingly as well. The fact that they were democratically elected, does that in any way diminsh the ardent passion they have for Islam and somehow signify that they've adopted a secular approach?

Its easy for you to sit in Leicester and spew grandiose statements without actually adducing any credible evidence to back it up? Sheikh Shariff even went so far as to entrust the implementation of Sharia to the Justice Ministry to which he is ready to appoint figures from Al Shabaab should they choose to engage with his nascent government. Again, what was the response from these undeterred lunatics? to launch a full onslaught on Mogadishu in the process killing countless civilians. 200 in the past month alone.

Are these the type of strategies you support as being Islamic and in accord with the Islamic laws of engagement?, which by the way if adhered to scrupulously, would arguably prohibit Al Shabaab from attempting to overthrow Sheikh Shariff's government anyway. These people are in no way different from the rank barbarians in Pakistan who cannot even observe a ceasefire and are marauding towards the capital like medieval vandals in search of plunder and the chance to enrich themselves.

Do not get me wrong, i totally detest western policies towards the Muslim world and i absolutely support legitimate resistance, e.g. Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood etc. But in no way can i see any rationale in the methodology and broadly speaking, objectives of Al Shabaab.

perhaps you could explain to me where i could find some evidence of these polls? even there were however they would not be valid or relevent as shariah is not an option for muslims, as sheikh anwar al awlaki points out.

btw, after the withdrawal of the ethiopians and the collapse of the previous transitional government, the rump of this agreed to go into coalition with a mixture of secularists and sheikh sharif's party to form a new government.

so it is infact a continuation of the previous government, this being one of claims for its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

you say you refuse to believe islam and democracy are incompatable, could i ask what faith you follow as you dont state it? i believe otherwise, i would hope inshallah i can prove this to you and if you are muslim show you have no option but to refuse to follow democracy as illegitimate in the shariah.

[Sampharo]

your argument was good and correct up to this point but unfortunately went downhill afterwards.

If you are ignorant about Islam, I suggest you do not stick your head into its debate. If you want to argue politics, do that with someone else, I'm not interested. If you were aiming for rediculing me, well, are people laughing yet?

Like you said, you should take your money and self and go to the Ash-shabab who promised everyone... a job was it?! And oh don't forget to declare the civilians and children you kill or cause to die as apostates by saying that out loud, maybe after enough times someone will actually believe you.

May you be granted guidance, and the wisdom to see it.

[Dawud_uk]

If you are ignorant about Islam, I suggest you do not stick your head into its debate. If you want to argue politics, do that with someone else, I'm not interested. If you were aiming for rediculing me, well, are people laughing yet?

Like you said, you should take your money and self and go to the Ash-shabab who promised everyone... a job was it?! And oh don't forget to declare the civilians and children you kill or cause to die as apostates by saying that out loud, maybe after enough times someone will actually believe you.

May you be granted guidance, and the wisdom to see it.

you yourself are the one admittnig to no knowledge on these issues, so why the strong points and name calling yourself?

if i reacted strongly it was because of the ridicule you put forward regarding the ulema, if you withdraw your comments i will happily delete my own regarding your post.

[Sampharo]

Ulema? Which Ulema? The real Ulema and Sheikhs are the ones I am studying with and under their tutelage at the Islamic University. The real Ulema are the ones who really pursue AAelm and knowledge properly and academically, through sources and structured learning and researching and matching written word with documented history of the Salafi people's actions and the TabiAAeen, and to all of them what this imam said is nothing more than backyard quackary rather than any science or AAelm. What he said is by definition Ta'weel and Takfeer, both haraam to varying degrees, and additionally raging on a war that has no real purpose and is showing civilian casualties without restraint.

I do not have knowledge of the political situation in Somalia, but I have very good knowledge and understanding of Islam, God's religion el-hamdolellah, and this bloodshed is not of God's religion.

Wassalam

[nocturnal]

perhaps you could explain to me where i could find some evidence of these polls? even there were however they would not be valid or relevent as shariah is not an option for muslims, as sheikh anwar al awlaki points out.

btw, after the withdrawal of the ethiopians and the collapse of the previous transitional government, the rump of this agreed to go into coalition with a mixture of secularists and sheikh sharif's party to form a new government.

so it is infact a continuation of the previous government, this being one of claims for its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

you say you refuse to believe islam and democracy are incompatable, could i ask what faith you follow as you dont state it? i believe otherwise, i would hope inshallah i can prove this to you and if you are muslim show you have no option but to refuse to follow democracy as illegitimate in the shariah.

So if tommorow members of the "Palestinian Authority/Fatah" joined a Hamas run unity government, that government would be illegitimate because of the history of certain individuals in it?

The Somali people want unity among feuding factions, what you're calling for is massacres en masse against anyone that opposes the specific variant of Sharia advocated by Al Shabaab that you apparently quite fervently believe in. That will only breed more resentment and hatred.

Jihad was necessary against the occupation by the Ethiopians, what we need now is reconciliation, something Al Shabaab are not willing to contemplate for a second, especially now given that their ambitions are almost being realised, they will not let anything curtail them in their endeavour to consolidate total control over the south. This is exactly why you have secession in the north with puntland/somaliland, and why also broadly speaking, deep chasms in the ummah accross the world.

The legitimacy of the international community isn't the issue here, the imperative issue is stability. What you are calling for is a total liquidation of anything and anyone who does not conform to your utopian ideals of a Somalia governed by these murderous thugs who do not have the interest of the people at heart.

Sheikh Shariff has made every possible overture to Al Shabaab, even now, while the total collapse of his administration is imminent. Sheikh Shariff brings a progressive and independent Islamic leadership to Somalia, one that engages with the international community but does not compromise on the sovereignty of the nation. What we will get with Al Shabaab is purges, beheadings, a terrified and brutalized society where even the most elementary civic functions will be lacking and to compund that, no international legitimacy.

You keep going on about the immutable virtues and necessity of sharia, yet you cannot quite enumerate where, when and how exactly it is being breached or not properly executed by officials in the Shariff administration.

[Dawud_uk]

Ulema? Which Ulema? The real Ulema and Sheikhs are the ones I am studying with and under their tutelage at the Islamic University. The real Ulema are the ones who really pursue AAelm and knowledge properly and academically, through sources and structured learning and researching and matching written word with documented history of the Salafi people's actions and the TabiAAeen, and to all of them what this imam said is nothing more than backyard quackary rather than any science or AAelm. What he said is by definition Ta'weel and Takfeer, both haraam to varying degrees, and additionally raging on a war that has no real purpose and is showing civilian casualties without restraint.

I do not have knowledge of the political situation in Somalia, but I have very good knowledge and understanding of Islam, God's religion el-hamdolellah, and this bloodshed is not of God's religion.

Wassalam

:sl:

do you think perhaps it is possible due to certain political realities in the muslim world that these scholars you follow might hide certain facts and rulings from you in fear of what the government might do to them?

:sl:

[Dawud_uk]

So if tommorow members of the "Palestinian Authority/Fatah" joined a Hamas run unity government, that government would be illegitimate because of the history of certain individuals in it?

The Somali people want unity among feuding factions, what you're calling for is massacres en masse against anyone that opposes the specific variant of Sharia advocated by Al Shabaab that you apparently quite fervently believe in. That will only breed more resentment and hatred.

Jihad was necessary against the occupation by the Ethiopians, what we need now is reconciliation, something Al Shabaab are not willing to contemplate for a second, especially now given that their ambitions are almost being realised, they will not let anything curtail them in their endeavour to consolidate total control over the south. This is exactly why you have secession in the north with puntland/somaliland, and why also broadly speaking, deep chasms in the ummah accross the world.

The legitimacy of the international community isn't the issue here, the imperative issue is stability. What you are calling for is a total liquidation of anything and anyone who does not conform to your utopian ideals of a Somalia governed by these murderous thugs who do not have the interest of the people at heart.

Sheikh Shariff has made every possible overture to Al Shabaab, even now, while the total collapse of his administration is imminent. Sheikh Shariff brings a progressive and independent Islamic leadership to Somalia, one that engages with the international community but does not compromise on the sovereignty of the nation. What we will get with Al Shabaab is purges, beheadings, a terrified and brutalized society where even the most elementary civic functions will be lacking and to compund that, no international legitimacy.

You keep going on about the immutable virtues and necessity of sharia, yet you cannot quite enumerate where, when and how exactly it is being breached or not properly executed by officials in the Shariff administration.

:sl:

sheikh sharif has promised his western paymasters that he will crush ash shabaab, hardly every possible overture to get consensus. and though the ethiopians have gone, their allied troops in the AU havent, nor has sheikh sharif even asked them to leave.

he has also promised the west that the shariah he implements will not mean the huddud will be implemented, check out the facts on this if you dont believe me.

now tell me how what is wrong with ash-shabaab have done when they have implemented the shariah?

also, tell me the ruling if a land already has an amir and a 2nd then claims rulership over it, say by way of example a land was already under the rule of ash-shabaab and their leaders and the west paracuted in a leader, said he was now head of government, what would be the ruling on such a situation?

[Sampharo]

:sl:

do you think perhaps it is possible due to certain political realities in the muslim world that these scholars you follow might hide certain facts and rulings from you in fear of what the government might do to them?

:sl:

After 9 years of studying with them, and reading and researching and studying books for myself from the Mother of books of 100 hijri till Al-Albani's latest, yes I can say safely that there is no conspiracy going through the entirity of the scholarly World. They are also not cowering in fear since they know most of all what the reward is for jihad and what the punishment is for those who speak falsehoods and misguide people when they know the truth. They have no problem to speak the truth against bad governance and many got themselves into persecution anyway and maintained the word of truth. And even if there was such unbelievable pressure to NOT say what you are thinking they should, they wouldn't be compulsed to explain and source and somehow find proof as to how false all what the misguided ones are saying regarding unnecessary bloodshed and Takfeer the people. Considering that I am one of them and have researched myself, I can tell you that no gun is held to my head to tell you so right now. And if there is a gun held to my head and I am ordered to say otherwise, non of the scholars nor myself would take long to do the right thing, say what should be said, and let them jail or kill as they may.

Brother, a kafir government you can call is like the one in Lebanon, with lawless factions and a non-muslim leading and weapons in the hands of every sect. That needs to be changed if there are enough muslims to rise and do so by their own hands and jihad, since it's already in ruin and already full of bloodhed. An example of a bad government can be found in Egypt, which separates Islamic Shariah from law completely and tolerates ruthless police or bad conditions and growing corruption, and every scholar or layman who will say that or preach that or shout it or objects gets put in jail. What muslims and scholars can do is speak and speak and withstand whatever those Faseqoon throw at the people and at the scholars, and work towards promoting and installing a rightful leader with campaigning and demonstrations and everything that dissent could bring, but there should be no open bloodshed, for they are muslim albeit bad ones, they hold the prayer and let the people hold it, they let muslims be muslims and let the Azhar teach religion. End of story. As for the new government in Somalia, which has just conveaned and has used consultation and voting to bring in Shariah, calling to fight them is haraaaaaaaaam and not acceptable or permissible and all the blood of muslims that is shed in this is haraam.

May God forgive all those who transgress and forgive all those who repent. And God as always knows best.

[Dawud_uk]

After 9 years of studying with them, and reading and researching and studying books for myself from the Mother of books of 100 hijri till Al-Albani's latest, yes I can say safely that there is no conspiracy going through the entirity of the scholarly World. They are also not cowering in fear since they know most of all what the reward is for jihad and what the punishment is for those who speak falsehoods and misguide people when they know the truth. They have no problem to speak the truth against bad governance and many got themselves into persecution anyway and maintained the word of truth. And even if there was such unbelievable pressure to NOT say what you are thinking they should, they wouldn't be compulsed to explain and source and somehow find proof as to how false all what the misguided ones are saying regarding unnecessary bloodshed and Takfeer the people. Considering that I am one of them and have researched myself, I can tell you that no gun is held to my head to tell you so right now. And if there is a gun held to my head and I am ordered to say otherwise, non of the scholars nor myself would take long to do the right thing, say what should be said, and let them jail or kill as they may.

Brother, a kafir government you can call is like the one in Lebanon, with lawless factions and a non-muslim leading and weapons in the hands of every sect. That needs to be changed if there are enough muslims to rise and do so by their own hands and jihad, since it's already in ruin and already full of bloodhed. An example of a bad government can be found in Egypt, which separates Islamic Shariah from law completely and tolerates ruthless police or bad conditions and growing corruption, and every scholar or layman who will say that or preach that or shout it or objects gets put in jail. What muslims and scholars can do is speak and speak and withstand whatever those Faseqoon throw at the people and at the scholars, and work towards promoting and installing a rightful leader with campaigning and demonstrations and everything that dissent could bring, but there should be no open bloodshed, for they are muslim albeit bad ones, they hold the prayer and let the people hold it, they let muslims be muslims and let the Azhar teach religion. End of story. As for the new government in Somalia, which has just conveaned and has used consultation and voting to bring in Shariah, calling to fight them is haraaaaaaaaam and not acceptable or permissible and all the blood of muslims that is shed in this is haraam.

May God forgive all those who transgress and forgive all those who repent. And God as always knows best.

:sl:

i agree with your last sentiments entirely, may Allah forgive us all where we transgress and Allah always knows best.

we have perhaps got off on a wrong foot but i didnt like the way you spoke so dismissively of an alim i trust and respect so much, perhaps it would help you to know who he is, as you are probably one of the view people who hasnt heard of his works and he invaluable for those of us who must relay on english translations not being fluent in arabic, a problem you wont have if you have been studying for so long.

so undoubtably have much more knowledge than me, of that i am sure but i dont think you are correct in this matter.

now dealing with some of your points, i dont know where you have studied but i have known of people being asked to leave damascus (after having a friend shot right in front of them), scholars being locked up and tortured in egypt (as you mention) and saudia (which you dont) so i am not sure you realise the ulema are not quite as free to speak as you think.

now you say the egyptian government as fasiqoon not kuffar, but they are not ruling by the shariah, and as someone who has studied a great deal i am sure you can tell us the opinion of sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah on the ones who rule by other than Allah has revealled or who the opinions of sheikh muhammad ibn abdul wahab?

so when you say this opinion of ruling by other than Allah being revealled being kufr or the one who takes an opinion against the Quran and sunnah being a kaffir and call it hogwash and an opinion not known in classical teachings then this isnt correct is it?

this is why i thought maybe you had not been taught about such matters by the ulema you learn from as it is a quite widely known position.

also, by general consensus what is the status of the one who allies with the kuffar against the muslims?

could i ask you do you know imam ahmed's opinion regarding the governor who allows the christians to deal in alcohol?

finally, in your opinion why is sheikh sharif the legitimate leader of somalia?

:sl:

[Zahida]

:sl: My personal opinion on this is that you don't have to tell everyone you meet about your past as long as you have come away from it and moved on...................

Something serious like you were a drug addict ......................
You have been married before..................
You've been to prison..........................
You have a child with someone............................

Big major things yes small little things no..................:D:w:

[alcurad]

:sl:



by general consensus
:sl:

but how is general consensus reached? was it ever reached at that on this issue?

[Sampharo]

The hadith in withstanding bad leaders and governors are almost countless, including from Sahih:

Some came to the prophet and asked "Oh prophet of God, what if we get Amirs who are unjust and corrupt and wouldn't give us our rights?" The prophet responded: "Listen and obey, for you will be rewarded for what you do, and they will answer (in judgement day) for what they do".

And then there is "Whomever hates something from his Amir, he should stay on it in patience, for whomever goes against the Amir and dies, he has died the death of Jahiliya (outside the fold of Islam)" Sahih Al-Bukhary and Muslim

Then there is MOST FITTINGLY: The prophet said "There will be leaders after me who do not heed my guidance and do not abide by my sunnah, but there will be men who rise against them, they will have the hearts of devils inside the bodies of humans." Anas -ra- said: "What should I do then if I live to see this?" the prophet replied: "Listen and obey the leader, if he lashes your back and takes your money, you listen and obey."


As for the scholars you mentioned, Yes people I know too were jailed and lashed and shot and discredited. I studied in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and now I am in Malaysia's Islamic University, over 11 years studying actively, and I am Egyptian originally so I know the hardship of bad government. But the government that comes with blood over the old one is no good, because even if it happens and was miraculously good and fair, it puts me in hell instead of heaven if I fight with it because I would have so many broken sahih Hadith from the prophet that state clearly I will be out of the fold of Jamaa and out of the fold of Islam! My brother those scholars did not take up arms and break ranks and shed the blood of muslims despite all that hardship they are facing, so believe me I know what I am talking about and they too.

As for Ibn Taymeyya, well here you go:
( ولهذا كان المشهور من مذهب أهل السنة أنهم لا يرون الخروج عن الأئمة وقتالهم بالسيف، وإن كان فيهم ظلم، كما دلت على ذلك الأحاديث الصحيحة المستفيضة عن النبي (r) لأن الفساد في القتال والفتنة أعظم من الفساد الحاصل بظلمهم بدون قتال ولا فتنة، فلا يدفع أعظم الفسادين بالتزام أدناهما ولعله لا يكاد يعرف طائفة خرجت على ذي سلطان إلا وكان خروجها من الفساد ما هو أعظم من الفساد الذي أزالته... ولذا لا يصح قتالهم بالسيف حتى لدفع ظلم). (منهاج السنة، (3/391) ط، مكتبة المعارف).
"It is known from the math-hab of the people of Sunnah that they do not approve of mutiny on leaders and fighting them with the sword, even if they are unjust, as proven by a multitude of correct authentic hadiths from the prophet -pbuh-, because the corruption and fitna in the fighting is far greater than the corruption that is there without fighting, so the lower corruption needs to be headed, and no group has ever mutinied on their leaders without producing a corruption that is far greater than the one it removed.... It is therefore forbidden to fight the leader by the sword even if they are unjust" The manhaj of Sunnah 3/391

That is Ibn Taymeyya. Otherwise, his Jihad against the mongols was because they were an invading force that never really converted to Islam and refused to even marry from muslims, and did not uphold prayer or anything!

What about Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, the source of jurisprudence for both Ibn Taymeyya as well as Ibn Abdul Wahhab:
السمع والطاعة للأئمة وأمير المؤمنين البر والفاجر من ولي الخلافة، واجتمع الناس عليه ورضوا به، ومن غلبهم بالسيف حتى صار خليفة وسمي أمير المؤمنين
"Listening and obeying to the leaders and to the Amir whether they are decent or fajer (abhorent) whomever has the leadership or the people are around and accepted, or whomever won over them by the sword until he became leader and was called Amir Al-Mo'menien"

Don't make me start with Al-Albani's sections on this matter, they are too many and I am getting sleepy.

All the rest of the stuff you are talking about of "working with those who are kuffar" or "not applying sharia" and all that are all not excuses for calling people as apostates, making their blood halal, and turning to war and mutiny against muslim governorsunder the guise that they are criminal or unjust, let alone that they are actually calling to peace and decided to rule by Shareah.

If you are not convinced, that is your own undoing. This is the established principals of Islam from the prophet -pbuh-, from his sahaba and from the most established respected scholars of that and this time, including the entirity of my colleagues.

Any "great" Ulema who want to go against this, and against direct sahih Hadith statements, can keep their greatness to themselves.

Allahumma ballaght, allahumma fash-had.

[Dawud_uk]

The hadith in withstanding bad leaders and governors are almost countless, including from Sahih:

Some came to the prophet and asked "Oh prophet of God, what if we get Amirs who are unjust and corrupt and wouldn't give us our rights?" The prophet responded: "Listen and obey, for you will be rewarded for what you do, and they will answer (in judgement day) for what they do".

And then there is "Whomever hates something from his Amir, he should stay on it in patience, for whomever goes against the Amir and dies, he has died the death of Jahiliya (outside the fold of Islam)" Sahih Al-Bukhary and Muslim

Then there is MOST FITTINGLY: The prophet said "There will be leaders after me who do not heed my guidance and do not abide by my sunnah, but there will be men who rise against them, they will have the hearts of devils inside the bodies of humans." Anas -ra- said: "What should I do then if I live to see this?" the prophet replied: "Listen and obey the leader, if he lashes your back and takes your money, you listen and obey."


As for the scholars you mentioned, Yes people I know too were jailed and lashed and shot and discredited. I studied in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and now I am in Malaysia's Islamic University, over 11 years studying actively, and I am Egyptian originally so I know the hardship of bad government. But the government that comes with blood over the old one is no good, because even if it happens and was miraculously good and fair, it puts me in hell instead of heaven if I fight with it because I would have so many broken sahih Hadith from the prophet that state clearly I will be out of the fold of Jamaa and out of the fold of Islam! My brother those scholars did not take up arms and break ranks and shed the blood of muslims despite all that hardship they are facing, so believe me I know what I am talking about and they too.

As for Ibn Taymeyya, well here you go:
( ولهذا كان المشهور من مذهب أهل السنة أنهم لا يرون الخروج عن الأئمة وقتالهم بالسيف، وإن كان فيهم ظلم، كما دلت على ذلك الأحاديث الصحيحة المستفيضة عن النبي (r) لأن الفساد في القتال والفتنة أعظم من الفساد الحاصل بظلمهم بدون قتال ولا فتنة، فلا يدفع أعظم الفسادين بالتزام أدناهما ولعله لا يكاد يعرف طائفة خرجت على ذي سلطان إلا وكان خروجها من الفساد ما هو أعظم من الفساد الذي أزالته... ولذا لا يصح قتالهم بالسيف حتى لدفع ظلم). (منهاج السنة، (3/391) ط، مكتبة المعارف).
"It is known from the math-hab of the people of Sunnah that they do not approve of mutiny on leaders and fighting them with the sword, even if they are unjust, as proven by a multitude of correct authentic hadiths from the prophet -pbuh-, because the corruption and fitna in the fighting is far greater than the corruption that is there without fighting, so the lower corruption needs to be headed, and no group has ever mutinied on their leaders without producing a corruption that is far greater than the one it removed.... It is therefore forbidden to fight the leader by the sword even if they are unjust" The manhaj of Sunnah 3/391

That is Ibn Taymeyya. Otherwise, his Jihad against the mongols was because they were an invading force that never really converted to Islam and refused to even marry from muslims, and did not uphold prayer or anything!

What about Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, the source of jurisprudence for both Ibn Taymeyya as well as Ibn Abdul Wahhab:
السمع والطاعة للأئمة وأمير المؤمنين البر والفاجر من ولي الخلافة، واجتمع الناس عليه ورضوا به، ومن غلبهم بالسيف حتى صار خليفة وسمي أمير المؤمنين
"Listening and obeying to the leaders and to the Amir whether they are decent or fajer (abhorent) whomever has the leadership or the people are around and accepted, or whomever won over them by the sword until he became leader and was called Amir Al-Mo'menien"

Don't make me start with Al-Albani's sections on this matter, they are too many and I am getting sleepy.

All the rest of the stuff you are talking about of "working with those who are kuffar" or "not applying sharia" and all that are all not excuses for calling people as apostates, making their blood halal, and turning to war and mutiny against muslim governorsunder the guise that they are criminal or unjust, let alone that they are actually calling to peace and decided to rule by Shareah.

If you are not convinced, that is your own undoing. This is the established principals of Islam from the prophet -pbuh-, from his sahaba and from the most established respected scholars of that and this time, including the entirity of my colleagues.

Any "great" Ulema who want to go against this, and against direct sahih Hadith statements, can keep their greatness to themselves.

Allahumma ballaght, allahumma fash-had.

:sl:

then after all that discussion it comes down to three issues where we should hone in on our discussion,

1. is that you hold it is not valid to rebel against a ruler?

2. allying with the kuffar is not kufr when he is fighting your brother

3. and not ruling by the shariah are not kufr

would you agree from reading back on our comments that these are our main disagreements and if one of us could convince the other on all three from the Quran and sunnah and what comes from that then we would have solved our differences?

as for point 1, it is really an extension of 2. and 3. this is because i agree it is not allowed to rebel against a ruler who is a fasiq, even if he is oppressing you.

but if a ruler becomes a kaffir then it is allowed as you mentioned yourself. agreed?

so let us concentrate on the issues of whether allying with the kuffar and not ruling by the shariah of Allah are matters which take the ruler out of islam.

if we can agree to this then we can inshallah continue and you can bring your evidences and me mine and each try to show the other we are correct, as you are training to be an alim this should really be no difficulty for you.

:sl:

[Omar_Mukhtar]

This debate is getting interesting between brother Daud and Sampharo, look forward to Sampharo's next reply. But I would like to point out that scholars can and have made takfir upon a person who prays, salah, fasts and does all the required acts of Islam, if the individual person denies something which is in the Quran and Sunnah and the Muslims have consensus over it. Technically, if a ruler or scholar bans hijab and says that it is not from Islam, then the scholars can make takfir on them , provided the evidences have been explained to the individual and established against them or the person is not completely jahil( ignorant). Remember Abu Bakr made takfir on those who denied Zakat. The scholars that brother Samapharo mentioned have all made takfir on Saddam Hussein and several other rulers of the Muslim world for their Baathism and communism, etc. These rulers might have prayed and fasted, heck even prayed Qiyamu Layl, but their kufr came in the fact that they believed Baathism, communism or Arab Nationalism to better than the Sharia of Allah.

[Dawud_uk]

This debate is getting interesting between brother Daud and Sampharo, look forward to Sampharo's next reply. But I would like to point out that scholars can and have made takfir upon a person who prays, salah, fasts and does all the required acts of Islam, if the individual person denies something which is in the Quran and Sunnah and the Muslims have consensus over it. Technically, if a ruler or scholar bans hijab and says that it is not from Islam, then the scholars can make takfir on them , provided the evidences have been explained to the individual and established against them or the person is not completely jahil( ignorant). Remember Abu Bakr made takfir on those who denied Zakat. The scholars that brother Samapharo mentioned have all made takfir on Saddam Hussein and several other rulers of the Muslim world for their Baathism and communism, etc. These rulers might have prayed and fasted, heck even prayed Qiyamu Layl, but their kufr came in the fact that they believed Baathism, communism or Arab Nationalism to better than the Sharia of Allah.

:sl:

there are also certain matters known by necessity, i.e every muslim should know these as matters of faith.

so even if someone claims islam, prays, fasts, but associates a partner with Allah then they are a kaffir murtad and to be brought to trial, or if the situation is war then fought and killed.

[Sampharo]

as for point 1, it is really an extension of 2. and 3.

That's going around in circles and takes what is right and mixes it in with what is wrong and forcing either right to be denied or wrong to be accepted.

1- I did not say "is that you hold it is not valid to rebel against a ruler?". Go back to my posts and read what I have written before forcing assumptions.

2- "allying with the kuffar is not kufr when he is fighting your brother" again is mixing in wrong with right, and saying something that I did not say!! Who made one group of people your brothers and not the other when it is one nation of 99% muslims?

3- "and not ruling by the shariah are not kufr" Not necessarily, no. It is fisq and weakness of faith.

But I would like to point out that scholars can and have made takfir upon a person who prays, salah, fasts and does all the required acts of Islam, if the individual person denies something which is in the Quran and Sunnah and the Muslims have consensus over it.

Takfir in general is not acceptable behaviour. As for denying the quran or that it was fabricated or that something in it is made up or missing, I already explained in another post that this is a principal of kufr because it is one of the tenets of faith (books). Neglecting its rulings or not abiding by it is NOT though. Denying Sunnah altogether again is against the tenets of faith (his messengers). Denying a hadith as unauthentic or neglecting to abide by it is again NOT.

The scholars that brother Samapharo mentioned have all made takfir on Saddam Hussein

What?! Which scholars I have mentioned have done that? Ibn Taymeyya? Ahmed Ibn Hanbal? Al-Albani? Those who dies before the guy was even born?!?! Or are you talking about the scholars I am studying with? Are you somehow saying that you somehow know them and know what they say and don't say?

Regardless of that, AGAIN this is taking a u-turn to politics. I am not going to go into Baathism and communism and dig into useless wormholes, this is obviously going nowhere.

then after all that discussion it comes down to three issues where we should hone in on our discussion................
......... so let us concentrate on the issues of whether allying with the kuffar and not ruling by the shariah of Allah are matters which take the ruler out of islam.

Yes, apparently after ALL the rulings and the hadiths that discusses Islam and is based on proper Islamic principals, you want to turn to politics and individual outcast sheikhs opinions. You seem to be trying to find ways of digging in cracks in order to find a shadow cast on some marginal nook somewhere, from which you can ignore all this and jump back on your own apparently unchanged opinion. You are looking for the comfort that whatever satisfies your frustration can be explained in some way to be Islamically acceptable, and therefore you are willing to do whatever to try and shove down people's collective throat the argument that people are right to shed the blood of those you are not happy with.

Sorry to disappoint you and Omar, but this is obviously no longer a productive debate, but an act of stubborness against simple straightforward rulings that are apparently not to your liking and therefore you are not willing to accept. That I am not going to debate.

My posts have established the clear warnings from the Quran and Sunnah and the prophet and the direct almost unanimous opinions of scholars: Fighting the new government in Somalia and the one in Pakistan is an act of mutiny and revolt, and violates cardinal Islamic principals starting from Mutiny to the Amir using arms and weapons and bloodshed, killing of civilians, and refusing to yield to peace when it was called for.

At the very least if you have an honest brick in the structure of your debate you will acknowledge at least that: causing the deaths of civilians and refusing to come to peace when called for are highly forbidden acts even if fighting an open war against Mushrekein and kuffar who are attacking out of thin air! But of course you are going to crab walk around that or ignore it, or maybe say that the civilians were supporting the army, and therefore have disbelieved and allied with kuffar, therefore are collectively kuffar themselves, and therefore should be fought and killed as well! Or that the call for peace is forced, or fake, or whatever other one of a 100 excuses that have been used before in those arguments.

I'll cut it short: You want rebels to fight the government because of injustice or because they claim Islamic Shariah is not applied in entirity. I showed you the dictated rulings against that. You want to listen to people who twist the situation and find angles by which they can call people as kuffar, I already showed you the Islamic rulings about that as well. Make your wise informed choice and support whomever you want. Scholarly community who knows far more than you and are teaching me and know more than me have found no validity in the claims that Somali government and Pakistani one are apostates and are to be fought with the sword and gun despite the bloodhed.

You choose God's war even if the conditions are not fulfilled. I and scholars choose God's peace and prevention of corruption as dictated.

Like I told you before, go ahead and go to Somal and may you find Ashabab as enlightened and Islamic as you think they are.

And Allah as always knows best

[Dawud_uk]

That's going around in circles and takes what is right and mixes it in with what is wrong and forcing either right to be denied or wrong to be accepted.

1- I did not say "is that you hold it is not valid to rebel against a ruler?". Go back to my posts and read what I have written before forcing assumptions.

2- "allying with the kuffar is not kufr when he is fighting your brother" again is mixing in wrong with right, and saying something that I did not say!! Who made one group of people your brothers and not the other when it is one nation of 99% muslims?

3- "and not ruling by the shariah are not kufr" Not necessarily, no. It is fisq and weakness of faith.



Takfir in general is not acceptable behaviour. As for denying the quran or that it was fabricated or that something in it is made up or missing, I already explained in another post that this is a principal of kufr because it is one of the tenets of faith (books). Neglecting its rulings or not abiding by it is NOT though. Denying Sunnah altogether again is against the tenets of faith (his messengers). Denying a hadith as unauthentic or neglecting to abide by it is again NOT.



What?! Which scholars I have mentioned have done that? Ibn Taymeyya? Ahmed Ibn Hanbal? Al-Albani? Those who dies before the guy was even born?!?! Or are you talking about the scholars I am studying with? Are you somehow saying that you somehow know them and know what they say and don't say?

Regardless of that, AGAIN this is taking a u-turn to politics. I am not going to go into Baathism and communism and dig into useless wormholes, this is obviously going nowhere.



Yes, apparently after ALL the rulings and the hadiths that discusses Islam and is based on proper Islamic principals, you want to turn to politics and individual outcast sheikhs opinions. You seem to be trying to find ways of digging in cracks in order to find a shadow cast on some marginal nook somewhere, from which you can ignore all this and jump back on your own apparently unchanged opinion. You are looking for the comfort that whatever satisfies your frustration can be explained in some way to be Islamically acceptable, and therefore you are willing to do whatever to try and shove down people's collective throat the argument that people are right to shed the blood of those you are not happy with.

Sorry to disappoint you and Omar, but this is obviously no longer a productive debate, but an act of stubborness against simple straightforward rulings that are apparently not to your liking and therefore you are not willing to accept. That I am not going to debate.

My posts have established the clear warnings from the Quran and Sunnah and the prophet and the direct almost unanimous opinions of scholars: Fighting the new government in Somalia and the one in Pakistan is an act of mutiny and revolt, and violates cardinal Islamic principals starting from Mutiny to the Amir using arms and weapons and bloodshed, killing of civilians, and refusing to yield to peace when it was called for.

At the very least if you have an honest brick in the structure of your debate you will acknowledge at least that: causing the deaths of civilians and refusing to come to peace when called for are highly forbidden acts even if fighting an open war against Mushrekein and kuffar who are attacking out of thin air! But of course you are going to crab walk around that or ignore it, or maybe say that the civilians were supporting the army, and therefore have disbelieved and allied with kuffar, therefore are collectively kuffar themselves, and therefore should be fought and killed as well! Or that the call for peace is forced, or fake, or whatever other one of a 100 excuses that have been used before in those arguments.

I'll cut it short: You want rebels to fight the government because of injustice or because they claim Islamic Shariah is not applied in entirity. I showed you the dictated rulings against that. You want to listen to people who twist the situation and find angles by which they can call people as kuffar, I already showed you the Islamic rulings about that as well. Make your wise informed choice and support whomever you want. Scholarly community who knows far more than you and are teaching me and know more than me have found no validity in the claims that Somali government and Pakistani one are apostates and are to be fought with the sword and gun despite the bloodhed.

You choose God's war even if the conditions are not fulfilled. I and scholars choose God's peace and prevention of corruption as dictated.

Like I told you before, go ahead and go to Somal and may you find Ashabab as enlightened and Islamic as you think they are.

And Allah as always knows best

:sl:

may offer to discuss our differences was genuine but if you are not interested in it then that is your choice, may Allah swt guide us all where we are incorrect, and forgive our errors, ameen.

:sl:

[Ibnkhatab]

May Allah protect Somalia.

We all know Allah punishes the Somalis because they chose tribalims, culture before Islam.

[Sampharo]

:sl:

my offer to discuss our differences was genuine but if you are not interested in it then that is your choice, may Allah swt guide us all where we are incorrect, and forgive our errors, ameen.

:sl:

Ameen to that. Anything else that I could say in such a debate has already been said, because I will insha Allah always debate with hadith and scholarly opinion, which i have already presented. So it would have become an argument, and arguing with brother muslims is not something I want to do.

:wasalamex

[Sampharo]

One more thing to mention about the subject before we close

There is another incident, and it is relevent and addresses the continuous "oh they are doing this and that and therefore that is like kufr and therefore we can fight them" argument:

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal God bless his soul was once visited by an angry crowd who told him, the Khalifa publicly says Quran was created (Khalq Al-Quran, a matter of controversy that was deemed to scar the belief in the Quran as a tenet of Faith and an act of Kufr) and is forcing scholars to say so, otherwise they are tortured. Imam Ahmed said this is kufr and told them to hold their tongues against such blasfemy even against torture. They asked then shouldn't they revolt and rise against the Khalifa since this is not only kufr, but pushing them on it, and he immediately said not to, and denied them breaking a mutiny. He said practice Jihad by withstanding this and saying the truth, and of course not to obey in whatever is disobedience to God, but not to break the rank the Khalifa or declare mutiny otherwise they will be Khawarej.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl: all,

first of all, i am going to inshallah try to establish the proof for two matters.

1. these are that ruling by other than Allah has revealled is kufr akbar and also kufr known by necessity.

2. and that allying with the kuffar when he is fighting your muslim brothers is also kufr akbar.

then inshallah to remove two other disagreements in this discussion i will inshallah try to establish two other matters after this.

3. that it is pemissable to rise up against the ruler whose kufr is widely known and known by necessity. like abandoning salaat or abandoning the shariah.

4. that sheikh sharif is not the legitimate ruler of the somalis anyway having been parachuted in by the kuffar when the victory of the mujahideen is close and that he has allied with the kuffar and stated himself that the 'shariah' he intends to rule by does not include some of the huddud.

:sl:

[Dawud_uk]

One more thing to mention about the subject before we close

There is another incident, and it is relevent and addresses the continuous "oh they are doing this and that and therefore that is like kufr and therefore we can fight them" argument:

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal God bless his soul was once visited by an angry crowd who told him, the Khalifa publicly says Quran was created (Khalq Al-Quran, a matter of controversy that was deemed to scar the belief in the Quran as a tenet of Faith and an act of Kufr) and is forcing scholars to say so, otherwise they are tortured. Imam Ahmed said this is kufr and told them to hold their tongues against such blasfemy even against torture. They asked then shouldn't they revolt and rise against the Khalifa since this is not only kufr, but pushing them on it, and he immediately said not to, and denied them breaking a mutiny. He said practice Jihad by withstanding this and saying the truth, and of course not to obey in whatever is disobedience to God, but not to break the rank the Khalifa or declare mutiny otherwise they will be Khawarej.

:sl: Sampharo

i do not believe you are comparing like for like, first of all the mujahideen have been on the ground ruling and fighting against the invaders and warlords since the start. their leaders have a right to establish the law of Allah, this man is not the legitimate leader, controls less ground and so if anything he is the one in rebellion against the rulers and we know the rule when you already have one ruler ruling by Allah's commands without kufr and a 2nd claims leadership.

2ndly, this also isnt a situation where there is a clear leader and needs to be established when cannot and can rebel as there is still a war going on and the situation is in flux, not at all simular to the situation you describe where the leader is known by all and not disputed.

3rdly, you are not comparing like for like on offenses, the Quran being the word of Allah is not something that the ruler at this time would have necessarily needed to know by necessity, what is known by necessity where being jahil is not an excuse differs and this is not like abandoning salaat or the law of Allah which are clear and known from the earliest times of islam but rather this was something new at this time and the ruler not being an alim would have had more excuses like other lay people in this matter.

:sl:

[Sampharo]

:sl: all,

first of all, i am going to inshallah try to establish the proof for two matters.

1. these are that ruling by other than Allah has revealled is kufr akbar and also kufr known by necessity.

2. and that allying with the kuffar when he is fighting your muslim brothers is also kufr akbar.

First off, let me stop you there brother. The simple ACT of trying to establish that something is kufr is not for you to do! It is not an area of ijtihad and plastering one ambiguous opinion of a quranic verse to an unattached hadith to create a new ruling. The simple matter that you are digging behind this is wrong. The prophet Mohammed -pbuh- closed his ears when someone came to him admitting adultery, and only upheld it when he admitted three times and asked, and did the same for apostacy, only when it was clear and glaring and the person announced it.

So for you to try and get a takfir angle on someone is by definition wrong, it is like setting a target and trying to get to it some way or another in order to do what you want. What more would it need to be considered "ruling by desires". The laws of kufr are clear and do not need "demonstration" based on village prayer leaders or renegade warring self-installing sheikhs. The academic community of scholars agree in such an overwhelming percentage that what al-shabab and Taleban are doing is wrong and there is little room for ijtihad in such consonants as kufr and breaking the ranks behind a country leader.

As for who came first and who second, like I said three times or so now, I do not do politics.

:w:

[Dawud_uk]

First off, let me stop you there brother. The simple ACT of trying to establish that something is kufr is not for you to do! It is not an area of ijtihad and plastering one ambiguous opinion of a quranic verse to an unattached hadith to create a new ruling. The simple matter that you are digging behind this is wrong. The prophet Mohammed -pbuh- closed his ears when someone came to him admitting adultery, and only upheld it when he admitted three times and asked, and did the same for apostacy, only when it was clear and glaring and the person announced it.

So for you to try and get a takfir angle on someone is by definition wrong, it is like setting a target and trying to get to it some way or another in order to do what you want. What more would it need to be considered "ruling by desires". The laws of kufr are clear and do not need "demonstration" based on village prayer leaders or renegade warring self-installing sheikhs. The academic community of scholars agree in such an overwhelming percentage that what al-shabab and Taleban are doing is wrong and there is little room for ijtihad in such consonants as kufr and breaking the ranks behind a country leader.

As for who came first and who second, like I said three times or so now, I do not do politics.

:w:

:sl:

you are right it is not for me to go read the Quran and sunnah and apply new rulings on what is or is not kufr, the ulema of the past and present did this for us.

this is a common mistake people make, thinking they are capable of interpreting the word of Allah and the ahadith themselves, often ignoring the opinions of those far greater in knowledge than themselves.

so i will inshallah bring evidences from the ulema also to show that this is not just my opinion on what is or is not kufr bawah.

i think you need to realise there are other opinions here than the ones you have learned so far as you seem to be in total denial or in ignorance that scholars have said such matters are kufr akbar.

you say you dont do politics, but you must admit surely if ash-shabaab were the first ones to rule by shariah, and president sharif is the 2nd to claim the same area then he is to be killed as the rebel and many of your objections to ash-shabaab fall down?

finally, i know ash-shabaab and the taliban are not perfect, i just happen to think they are closer to the truth than anyone else in their respective spheres of influence and as you pointed out yourself, if they become the rulers then even if they oppress people it is not halal to rebel against them unless kufr barah is shown, agreed?

[Omar_Mukhtar]

[ reply to your response on page 2:]Akhi Sampharo. I haven't made takfir on anyone. Anyway, let us call it a day here, since you seem to be insistant on getting your own view across, and then saying "stop", you are wrong, let us stoping debating, you are getting into politics, when others put forward their opinion. [/I] May Allah guide all of us, ameen.

[Sampharo]

i think you need to realise there are other opinions here than the ones you have learned so far as you seem to be in total denial or in ignorance that scholars have said such matters are kufr akbar.

Not really. I do realize there are other opinions out there that are of the 5%, we review them as part of our studies and learn how they were arrived out and what mistakes have been made in order to lead those people to those options. There is something also called "undue weight" which is when there is an overwhelming consensus against a specific opinion, by necessity that opinion should not have more than mention status as well as noting to everyone that it is of the minority, and the prophet -pbuh- ordered the sahaba and their followers to stick to Jamaa and consensus, and to remove any extreme notions from application in law or governance or people's practices when it is opposing and denounced as wrong by the majority.

That's different than for example when Abu Haneefa says there is no raising of the hands except in the start of the prayer based on Ibn Masood's stronger narrator hadith, while Ahmed and Shafei say there should be based on Ibn Omar's hadith which is higher in authenticity, even though there is a difference, the methodology and the lack of a dictated ruling from the prophet allows for both opinions to exist, majority and minority without clash. Whomever does this or that is not in sin as long as they understand the methodlogy. The opinions calling for war has been denounced by the vast majority of scholars (over 90% of the academic community) and already discussed and argued against and found to be lacking in so many areas in addition to violating other rulings without address whatsoever, such as what I mentioned that you cannot under any circumstances cause civilian deaths and continue with impunity, or attack the opposing forces despite calls for peace. By the pure principal of JamaAAa yes I wouldn't be interested in going down a road I have seen several times and the consensus was, and I am to be correct, that it is Batel.

Will you continue down your road despite what I said? Obviously yes. People who went against the rulings with obscure fatwas and new ahkam despite everything have been there since the start of time. God is the one in the end who will show all their mistakes and judge on those who held on to his and the prophet's rulings, and those who kill at least without observing the conditions. You are that bold? Good for you and May God guide us all.

[DAWUD_adnan]

This news saddens me. Shabaab are the worst thing to happen to Somalia since the tribal wars.

We have over 1000 foreign fighters now, killing Somalis, in their own homes.


I beg Allah to do something, just something.

Have you seen how they destroy the graves of great Somali scholars?

This government we have, is the best thing to happen to Somalia since the war started. I hope the international community does something, before Somalia turns into a terrorist safe haven.

Also, Dawud-UK needs to settle down. There is nothing good in the killing of people, Allah will punish those who kill innocents . No matter who they are or what they believe.

[alcurad]

... if they become the rulers then even if they oppress people it is not halal to rebel against them unless kufr barah is shown, agreed?

brother, oppression is worse than Kufr in that regard. no one, regardless of their real beliefs will show kufr barah as some people understand it, it's not going to happen that a ruler of a muslim country will denounce Islam publicly, and abolish all prayers etc, and so this condition is quite irrelevant tin most cases.

rather we need to realize that it is oppression that is the source of most ills we face, thus is not to be accepted everything else being equal.

[Dawud_uk]

Not really. I do realize there are other opinions out there that are of the 5%, we review them as part of our studies and learn how they were arrived out and what mistakes have been made in order to lead those people to those options. There is something also called "undue weight" which is when there is an overwhelming consensus against a specific opinion, by necessity that opinion should not have more than mention status as well as noting to everyone that it is of the minority, and the prophet -pbuh- ordered the sahaba and their followers to stick to Jamaa and consensus, and to remove any extreme notions from application in law or governance or people's practices when it is opposing and denounced as wrong by the majority.

That's different than for example when Abu Haneefa says there is no raising of the hands except in the start of the prayer based on Ibn Masood's stronger narrator hadith, while Ahmed and Shafei say there should be based on Ibn Omar's hadith which is higher in authenticity, even though there is a difference, the methodology and the lack of a dictated ruling from the prophet allows for both opinions to exist, majority and minority without clash. Whomever does this or that is not in sin as long as they understand the methodlogy. The opinions calling for war has been denounced by the vast majority of scholars (over 90% of the academic community) and already discussed and argued against and found to be lacking in so many areas in addition to violating other rulings without address whatsoever, such as what I mentioned that you cannot under any circumstances cause civilian deaths and continue with impunity, or attack the opposing forces despite calls for peace. By the pure principal of JamaAAa yes I wouldn't be interested in going down a road I have seen several times and the consensus was, and I am to be correct, that it is Batel.

Will you continue down your road despite what I said? Obviously yes. People who went against the rulings with obscure fatwas and new ahkam despite everything have been there since the start of time. God is the one in the end who will show all their mistakes and judge on those who held on to his and the prophet's rulings, and those who kill at least without observing the conditions. You are that bold? Good for you and May God guide us all.

:sl:

are you seriously saying you have been taught that the majority is the jammat and that the majority is enough to establish ijma?

in regard to my other points, i will bring my proofs shortly but been a bit busy last few days.

[Dawud_uk]

This news saddens me. Shabaab are the worst thing to happen to Somalia since the tribal wars.

We have over 1000 foreign fighters now, killing Somalis, in their own homes.


I beg Allah to do something, just something.

Have you seen how they destroy the graves of great Somali scholars?

This government we have, is the best thing to happen to Somalia since the war started. I hope the international community does something, before Somalia turns into a terrorist safe haven.

Also, Dawud-UK needs to settle down. There is nothing good in the killing of people, Allah will punish those who kill innocents . No matter who they are or what they believe.

they did not destroy the graves of any scholars, what they did was demolish the idolitrous structures built over the graves as was the command of Rasoolullah (saws).

your other objection is that they have foreign fighters? well so what. i always find this a strange objection, surely if they were an islamic movement people would want to come fight for them, if they were not there would only be somalis in their ranks.

as for the government, it controls less land and people than most town councils in the uk, ash-shabaab are the ones who have established the rule of Allah over most of southern somalia, if president sharif desires peace then let him lay down his arms and join them.

[KAding]

Somalia crisis 'Africa's worst'

The "very dire" humanitarian crisis in Somalia is the worst in Africa for many years, says Oxfam's co-ordinator for the failed Horn of Africa state.

Many of its hundreds of thousands of internally-displaced people, the world's largest such concentration, have little food or shelter, he said.

Mogadishu civilians have been fleeing intense fighting between Islamist guerrillas and pro-government forces.

The exodus is continuing from the capital amid the crackle of gunfire.

The BBC's Mohamad Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says city-dwellers are taking advantage of a relative lull in the fighting on Tuesday to get out, carrying light belongings in the arms.

“ What is actually happening now in Somalia is indeed the worst kind of humanitarian situation in Africa in many years ”
Hassan Noor Oxfam's Somalia co-ordinator

Many thousands of people, mainly women and children, have fled to Afgooye, just south of the city where most are sheltering under trees with little to eat or drink, he says.

Hassan Noor, Oxfam's humanitarian co-ordinator for Somalia, told the BBC's Network Africa programme circumstances in the capital were "very dire".

"The situation is really appalling," he said.

"There are hundreds of children all over the area with tubes on their faces and [saline] drips on their hands. Some of them are actually unconscious and suffering from all sorts of diseases, mainly acute diarrhoea and cholera."

"I have seen the situation in Darfur, northern Uganda, some parts of Congo, but what is actually happening now in Somalia is indeed the worst kind of humanitarian situation in Africa in many years," he added.

Roadside bomb

Radical Islamist militia groups, Hisbul-Islam and al-Shabab, have been locked in see-sawing battles in the Somali capital with pro-government forces that have displaced more than 60,000 civilians since 7 May.

CRISIS IN NUMBERS
# 60,000 displaced in a month
# 1m displaced in total
# 3.2m need urgent food aid
# 18 years of civil conflict

Pro-government forces appeared to gain some ground on Monday as they pressed on with a counter-offensive launched last week against the insurgents, who control swathes of southern and central Somalia.

Loyalist troops in north Mogadishu retook a police station which had been occupied by insurgent fighters for the past month. The police station is seen as the key to controlling that area of town.

However, at least five Somali policemen were killed in a roadside bomb blast in the south of the capital.

A moderate Islamist president took office in January but even his introduction of Sharia law to the strongly Muslim country has not appeased the guerrillas, who are accused of links to al-Qaeda.

There are 4,300 African Union peacekeepers from Uganda and Burundi in the capital to help bolster the government, but they do not have a mandate to pursue the insurgents.

The UN last month warned that drought had left nearly half of Somalia's nine million population malnourished and some 3.2 million in urgent need of food aid.

It is estimated at least one million people have been internally displaced by almost perpetual civil conflict in the failed Horn of Africa nation since the collapse of its central government in 1991.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8078594.stm

It does not appear that the situation is improving.

What is the mandate of the AU forces exactly? They are clearly an important reason for al-Shabab to keep fighting. But are they actively engaged in the current fighting? It is very uncommon for peacekeepers to have such a mandate. To what extend are the AU forces just an excuse to continue fighting?

[Dawud_uk]

:sl:

apologies for the length of time replying before, we've had quite a few new reverts on the da'wah stall and they are a priority over discussions here on this website.

anyway, first of all concerning the kufr and shirk of obeying man made law and impermissability of such.

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/...T1-chap-36.htm

here is a link to an online copy of kitab at tawhid, those with the book at home can look it up themselves also.

as you can see sheikh muhammad ibn abdul wahab was of this opinion, that following other than Allah has revealled is a form of kufr and the one who is followed if he agrees with this is a taghoot.

Here is a counter to the 'counter argument,' kufr doona kufr which some people put up, saying yes it is kufr but lesser kufr, lit. a kufr less than kufr but showing this is only in the case of a judge or ruler making a momentary mistake and not abandoning the rule of Allah by changing a rule as is the case of the rulers today.

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=549

Inshallah i will bring proofs for the next matter in my list next.

:sl:

[Sampharo]

Mohamed Abdul Wahab opinion is his own alone, and as per your own link you shouldn't listens to a scholar against what Allah has revealed. The prophet's dictation that leaders who don't follow shariah or sunnah are still to be followed and not have their rulership broken is as clear as daylight. Ibn Abbas that is being quoted is narrated out of context and we already grew weary from all these misquotations. Scholars have been dealing with zanadeqa's mutations and misquotations for donkey's years, zanadeqa who has been changing the words and attributing false statements to great scholars, especially Ibn Taymeyyea, where they take many of his paragraphs in his books where he would write for example: [Khawarej would say "muslims should rise against ......... etc."...... and that is corrupt saying because...] and they would come and say that Ibn Taymeyya said so and quote the paragraph without the underlined sections.

You are either calling Ibn Abbas as a liar or else the quotation is mistaken because strangely enough it was Ibn Abbas in specific who said that that specific verse is regarding Mushrekien and whomever muslim does not rule by Shariah is not a kafir but a only thalem! How can you explain the contradiction then, huh?

Quotation from Ibn Kathir as well as Al-Qurtubi tafsir:
وقال ابن عباس قوله {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل اللّه فأولئك هم الكافرون} قال: من جحد ما أنزل اللّه فقد كفر، ومن أقر به ولم يحكم به فهو ظالم فاسق

So, Dauod? Are you saying that Ibn Abbas was lying then or lying later?

The answer is he wasn't lying in neither but as usual Rahat and Sects take things out of context to gain legitimacy to their calls. What Ibn Abbas ACTUALLY said was that knowing what is in Shariah and then twisting it knowingly and saying that Shariah says this or that is a kafir. Such as those who twist the word "Nabeeth" regarding raisin syrup and try to say this means wine, or saying based on the verse "Their food is halal for you" means that it is ok now to eat all christian food including pork and alcohol. Those who know that they changed it out of desire and are trying to say what God has not said are taking those "scholars" as partners, and have been ruled by Abu Bakr and Umar as apostates and were threatened to be put to death when they did that, to which they immediately repented.

Above all however I cannot comprehend how you are actually bringing the very argument held against those zanadeqa, and instead using it for them! You bring a quote that says NOT TO LISTEN TO SCHOLARS WHO PERMIT WHAT GOD HAS PROHIBITED yet you are arguing against over 12 solid authenticated hadith prohibiting fighting Amirs who do not rule by the Sunnah, counting on what Abdul Wahab might have explained regarding what Ibn Abbas has been quoted with? Do not return please without contemplating and understanding this, and unless you have proof that those hadiths are invalid or unauthentic then you are basically stating that you are delibarately disobeying God and his prophet. What does that make you?

Changing interpretation and misquoting on purpose is called zandaqa, and it leads to great ignorance and misguidance. This is actually what these people are doing to try and validate their acts of terror. You are obviously not a zendeeq and seem to mean well, but you ARE responsible for what you say because you have stated many times that you don't have knowledge about these matters. It is on this very foundation that you should at least respect that you don't know and stop pushing what outcasts have falsified and are trying to push into mainstream for centuries, and consider at least the possibility that you are becoming their political tool.

As per your own misquoted statement, no scholar is to be followed in reversing what God prohibited, and God prohibited fighting Amirs even if they do not rule by sunnah. All ijtihad to the contrary have been politically motivated and been done for 1400 years and has always used misquotations or attempted to reverse interpretations. All the origins of these tactics are well known and refuted since they were first used to justify the assasination of Uthman Ibn Affan, and which has been invalidated by the consensus of schools of jurisprudence.

[Dawud_uk]

Mohamed Abdul Wahab opinion is his own alone, and as per your own link you shouldn't listens to a scholar against what Allah has revealed. The prophet's dictation that leaders who don't follow shariah or sunnah are still to be followed and not have their rulership broken is as clear as daylight. Ibn Abbas that is being quoted is narrated out of context and we already grew weary from all these misquotations. Scholars have been dealing with zanadeqa's mutations and misquotations for donkey's years, zanadeqa who has been changing the words and attributing false statements to great scholars, especially Ibn Taymeyyea, where they take many of his paragraphs in his books where he would write for example: [Khawarej would say "muslims should rise against ......... etc."...... and that is corrupt saying because...] and they would come and say that Ibn Taymeyya said so and quote the paragraph without the underlined sections.

You are either calling Ibn Abbas as a liar or else the quotation is mistaken because strangely enough it was Ibn Abbas in specific who said that that specific verse is regarding Mushrekien and whomever muslim does not rule by Shariah is not a kafir but a only thalem! How can you explain the contradiction then, huh?

Quotation from Ibn Kathir as well as Al-Qurtubi tafsir:
وقال ابن عباس قوله {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل اللّه فأولئك هم الكافرون} قال: من جحد ما أنزل اللّه فقد كفر، ومن أقر به ولم يحكم به فهو ظالم فاسق

So, Dauod? Are you saying that Ibn Abbas was lying then or lying later?

The answer is he wasn't lying in neither but as usual Rahat and Sects take things out of context to gain legitimacy to their calls. What Ibn Abbas ACTUALLY said was that knowing what is in Shariah and then twisting it knowingly and saying that Shariah says this or that is a kafir. Such as those who twist the word "Nabeeth" regarding raisin syrup and try to say this means wine, or saying based on the verse "Their food is halal for you" means that it is ok now to eat all christian food including pork and alcohol. Those who know that they changed it out of desire and are trying to say what God has not said are taking those "scholars" as partners, and have been ruled by Abu Bakr and Umar as apostates and were threatened to be put to death when they did that, to which they immediately repented.

Above all however I cannot comprehend how you are actually bringing the very argument held against those zanadeqa, and instead using it for them! You bring a quote that says NOT TO LISTEN TO SCHOLARS WHO PERMIT WHAT GOD HAS PROHIBITED yet you are arguing against over 12 solid authenticated hadith prohibiting fighting Amirs who do not rule by the Sunnah, counting on what Abdul Wahab might have explained regarding what Ibn Abbas has been quoted with? Do not return please without contemplating and understanding this, and unless you have proof that those hadiths are invalid or unauthentic then you are basically stating that you are delibarately disobeying God and his prophet. What does that make you?

Changing interpretation and misquoting on purpose is called zandaqa, and it leads to great ignorance and misguidance. This is actually what these people are doing to try and validate their acts of terror. You are obviously not a zendeeq and seem to mean well, but you ARE responsible for what you say because you have stated many times that you don't have knowledge about these matters. It is on this very foundation that you should at least respect that you don't know and stop pushing what outcasts have falsified and are trying to push into mainstream for centuries, and consider at least the possibility that you are becoming their political tool.

As per your own misquoted statement, no scholar is to be followed in reversing what God prohibited, and God prohibited fighting Amirs even if they do not rule by sunnah. All ijtihad to the contrary have been politically motivated and been done for 1400 years and has always used misquotations or attempted to reverse interpretations. All the origins of these tactics are well known and refuted since they were first used to justify the assasination of Uthman Ibn Affan, and which has been invalidated by the consensus of schools of jurisprudence.

wow, is it me or did some one just go off on one a little?

brother, we are discussing a matter politely, maybe it is because english is not your first language you are coming across so harshly or maybe i am reading it incorrectly.

[Sampharo]

You're reading incorrectly just the same as the quotes you seem to bring. You were unable to make sense, unable to maintain point of reference (self-contradicting), and unable to bring any evidence. You may take misguiding people lightly in matters of life and death, it is not, and you will answer for it in front of God.

[Omar_Mukhtar]

.The prophet's dictation that leaders who don't follow shariah or sunnah are still to be followed and not have their rulership broken is as clear as daylight.

Where did the prophet say this, ya akhi sampharo? I have never heard of such at thing!

[Dawud_uk]

Where did the prophet say this, ya akhi sampharo? I have never heard of such at thing!

it is a total corruption of the text, yes it is sinful to rise up against a ruler who is sinful but there is plenty of evidence to show it is not only sinful but necessary to rise up against the ruler who abandons the shariah.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

This thread has gone on long enough. Let us remember that none of us here is a scholar and as such do not have the ability nor the right to speak about the details of Islamic Jurisprudence. And instead of engaging in lengthy debates online (which carry little to no benefit), we can probably spend our time doing something more beneficial. Ramadan is coming up soon, perhaps we ought to get to preparing for it Insha'Allaah. This thread is now closed.

12.This is not a Fiqh discussion board. Prolonged threads arguing over Fatwas and the details of Islamic law will be closed. Avoid asking questions that require a Scholar or Shaykh, as there is no one on the board qualified to answer your questions. Please use other knowledgeable means such as a scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area or provide sources.

:threadclo