War in Southern Somalia nearly over

[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

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?

 

[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.

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]

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?

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.

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?

 

[Zahida]

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..................

 

[alcurad]

by general consensus

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.