War in Southern Somalia nearly over

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dawud_uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 105
  • Views Views 13K
Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 


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:
 
May Allah protect Somalia.

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

 


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?
 
[ 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.
 
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.


 
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.
 
Last edited:
... 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
: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/abdulwahab/KT1-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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top