Baashi;980196 wrote: Still -- you can't justify the wanton killings of innocent civilians. Anyone who knowingly and willfully kills innocent people is guilty of heinous crime. What transpired in Westgate mall is a grossly wicked offence. Understand it as such awoowe. Do not justify or rationalize the wicked. If Kenyan troops, as you say, have committed war crimes against civilians then they are guilty as you charged them. Document everything you know about these crimes, publicize the images, advocate for the victims... Laba-X war Allah ka baq awoowe Ah! Baashi, horta adeer salan qaali ah iga guddoon after such a long hiatus. Denbi ma leh cadaawaha ninkii deli ka xooraaye Darajuu Ilaahiis ka heli labada ******e Dubku iima naxo nimay kufriga deris wadaagaane! Now, you careful choice of language hasn’t gone unnoticed Adeer. When you say: ‘If Kenyan troops, as you say, have committed war crimes against civilians then they are guilty as you charged them’ Would I be mistaken in asserting that there is a hidden implication to the words “as you say” that suggest that you do not necessarily agree with me that Kenyan forces have committed heinous atrocities against innocent civilians in Somalia? There is very little media coverage regarding Kenyan war crimes in Somalia, Baashi, but the atrocities are so immense that thousands of people from dozens of villages have been displaced. So if what transpired at Westgate was – as you say – wicked, then it must be agreed is that what took place in the refugee camps and villages in Southern Somalia was far worse and contemptible. Keenyaan* waxaan meeriyoo malag laraadshaaba Waxaan maylinka ululayoo micida ruugaaba Inaan miigihii shalay lahelay mahad Alle sheega Inaan guuto mawjada ahoo meheriyoo u geeyay Oo aan magkalay duulku waa naga mutaysteene Oo naan mareegaha ufuray mahad Alle Sheega hadaba aniga sow maaha.... hadii seefo iyo maare iyo sumuc la ii qaato cadaawuhu hadey igu salaan sakhara naareede samci maayo sowdkaan ahayn siinka looxa ahe I believe in the Law of Retribution yaa Baashi! weli sima bedelin.

Wadani;980177 wrote: This is true no doubt. But it still does not justify what happened in that mall. Both these foreign mercenaries in Somalia, in the form of the KDF and AMISOM, and Al-shabaab are a menace to the region. An eye for an eye, my friend. That is just retribution. What justifies the senseless killing of women and children in Jilib or Kismayo for that matter? Is the blood of Somali civilians any less valuable than that of the Kenyans? As for Al-Shabaab being a foreign mercenary - that's a load of rubbish and you know it yaa Wadani. They are the sons and daughters of this nation ee cirka kama soo dhicin dadku. furthermore, a great majority of them have never set foot outside the regions of Southern Somalia let alone outside Somalia.

Very often, it's the weak-spirited that do the condemning and, very often, it gets them no where. Kenyan forces have been killing innocent Somalis, shelling refugee camps, destroying homes, raping women, and pillaging Somalia for nearly two years without even the slightest of condemnation. In fact, many of those who are now shedding tears over Westgate Mall were blithely apathetic to the Kenyan atrocities back then. Dry your eyes folks, Westgate was just a tiny fraction of what is inflicted upon poor Somalis civilians day in day out.

When the months diminish into years And time, your youth slowly grinds Your future, of your past and present reminds And with it, tranquility dissipates into fears When days appear to begin with nights And the distance between them grows Soon your friends become your foes And instead of hugs, you trade fist fights When memory fades and the sight too Senseless of your senses you remain To your friends, of your foes you’d complain But fails to distinguish between the two It seems that I have travelled thousands of miles into the wilderness; traversed through the Somali plains, past boundless desiccate terrains, fertile plateaus, barren fields, and desolate settlements in order to satiate this insatiable soul and to quench the thirst of a weary Nomad. Under the scintillating Makhirian stars, I’ve regularly sat – gazing into their dazzling brilliance and through their dark, labyrinthine paths, lunged the thrust of my fading memory into an infinite hollow space. In that serenity, I’ve kindled a fire – ignited by unfathomable passions and a profound infatuation with mystery – and in the middle of the deserts, sang to the sandstorms and, around the dying embers, danced, gleefully, to the melodious, though sometimes harsh and unbearable, tunes of destiny. And it is destiny that echoed, one clear summer night if I remember correctly, that I pay my respects to my fellow Nomads, despite our varying taste in the melodies destiny methodically churns out. For while some Nomads remain benighted under the darkness of the moonless nights, others prefer to revel in their melodies under the full moon. But destiny, it appears, remains somberly apathetic throughout. The melody it plays, well at least for me, is a euphonious overture to that ear-splitting ‘Shahada’ symphony. But until then, I am just a bird of passage. A bird of passage. And these, as my fellow Nomad used to sing once, are merely words on a screen. Just words on a screen. Greetings NOMADS…

Lets see if the arden TFG cheerleaders and their Peace Caravan can really deliver! Today they have been pushed several hundred metres behind Global Hotel - Lets see how far they will run tomorrow! As for the so-called imminent war - the reality on the ground needs to be taken into account when deciding matters. By now it has become clear that the feeble TFG cannot defeat the Mujahideen alone - even with the so-called newly trained soldiers. So their only option is an American intervention. This, though, might prove a great disadvantage - for if the Americans get involved, their role will only be limited to reconnaissance missions and perhaps searching for some targets on their list - but I do not see them directly getting involved in this war. So the TFG wouldn't gain much for this love affair. They might provide logistical support, ammunition, communications equipment, surveillance etc, but they won't get involved on land - for if they do that they know that the number of fighters will dramatically increase. Certainly, they do not wish to see the return of the Black Hawk Down debacle. They are not ready to face another humiliating defeat from the 'skinnies on the roof' But whatever the situation may be - we can be certain that the TFG can never gain more than it currently occupies - and if, by a stroke of fortune, it does, it will not be able to hold it. But of course time will tell. As for me - I am beginning to see the beginning of the end of the TFG. But of course, time will tell...

Xiinow, a little learning is a dangerous thing adeer, especially when coupled by blind following! I know fully well the implications of what I am saying Adeer, and I trust the knowledge of the scholars I cite. The question is, are you aware of the implications of what you write. You are asserting that all these culamaa are Takfeeris! As for the questions you listed, all of the rulings of these countries are based on constitutions derived from western laws along with portions of the Shariah (keep reading to find out who declared this verdict) And ruling besides what Allah has revealed is Kufr as the scholars have agreed. But because of your Taqlid and blind following, you are stuck with Sheikh Ibn Baaz condition of Istixlaal in the ruler’s heart And Sheikjh Albani’s Kufr Duna Kufr, and ignore the verdicts of all the other Culamaa – where the majority have issued the verdict that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is not only Kufr but rather complete Istibdal of the Shariah as Sh. Fawzan, Ibrahim Aala-Shaykh and others pointed out. And since I am propagating their ideology, and you were quick to claim that this is an ideology of Takfeer, then it is up to you to prove that! This is a mounting burden upon you ee meeshaad ka geli layad raadso sheekhow! Also are the scholars I have cited not scholars of the Salaf? Ponder on these for a moment: • Siciid Ibn Jubair, Taa’us Ibn Keysaan and Ibrahim Al-nakhaci declared that Xajaaj Ibn Yusuf was a Kaafir. • Some of the scholars of Saudi Arabia declared Siyaad Baare and Ata Turk before him to Kuffar • Sheikh Ibn Baaz, Sheikh Cuthaymeen, and many other scholars declared the president of Tunis, the president of Libya (qaddafi), the late president of Iraq (Saddam), the president of Syria (Xaafid al Asad) to be Kuffar • Sheikh Muqbil declared thos Xukuuma in Eden to be Kuffar and called the rulers in the Muslim countries to be the enemies of Shari’ah • Sh Ibrahim ala-Shaykh, the late Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Sheikh maxamud Rashid Ridha before him declared that any country where the rule that governs it is besides what Allah has revealed to be Darul Kufr where it is obligatory to migrate from! • During Fitnatul khaleej, the Scholars of Saudi Arabia declared that the only country that ruled according to the Qur’an and Sunnah at that time was Saudi Arabia and that all other Islamic countries were being governed by Kufr constitutions and man-made laws. This means that all these countries, except Saudi, were declared Diyaarul Kufr because of their Istibdal of the Xukm of Allah to Qawaanin al-Wadhciyyah. Go read on the events of Fitnatul khaleej. As for Saudi Arabia, read Al Kawaashif al Jaliyyah fi Kufr Dawla as-Sacuudiyyah – two volumes • The Tartars attacked the lands of Islam in Shaam and other places, Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah declared them apostates who should be fought before the original Kuffar are fought. (Majmuc al Fatawa 28/530) • Ibn taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Nabulisi, and many other scholars declared the Cubaydiyyin to be apostates, despite the fact they manifesting all outwardly sings of Islam. They only did not rule by Shari’ah (Al-Nasr cala Misr by Ibn Qayyim) • Mohammad Ibn Abdillah, the king of Marakech sought the help of the King of Portugal against his uncle Abu Marwan and the Maliki scholars declared him an apostate. (Al-istiqsa 2/70) • The ruler of Seville (Souther Spain), Al Mu’tamid ibn ibaad, sought the help of the Kuffar against the Muslims and the Maliki scholars declared him an apostate (Al-istiqsa 2/75) • Some of the tribes in Algeria assisted the French against the Muslims so the Jurist of Maghrib, Abul Hasan at-tasuli, delivered a legal verdict pronouncing the Kufr. (Awjiba at-tasuli ala Masa’il al-Amir C.qadir al-Jazaa’iri 120) • The British and French oppressed the Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere, so Shaykh Ahmad Shakir delivered a legal verdict imputing Kufr on whoever assisted them in any way shape or form. (Kalimatul Haqq, 126) • The jews took over Palestine and some Muslims who ascribed Islam assisted them, so the committed for legal verdicts at al-Azhar under the heading of Shaykh Abdul Majid Salim issued a legal verdict in 1366 declaring whoever assisted them to be a kaafir • The communists and Socialists increased in the Muslim lands and some of those claiming Islam assisted them, so Shaykh Ibn Baaz issued a legal verdict declaring whoever assisted them to be a Kaafir. (Majmucal fatawa 1/274) Go ahead and call them Takfeeri’s for making Takfeer on Muslims then if you will! Because you don’t understand the concept of Takfeer and simply happen to go along with your teachings of Irja, so you fail to differentiate between Takfeer Mucayyan such as the examples I gave above and the general Takfeer (cumuum) of Muslims. The issues we discussed were specific, i.e a specific ruler who rules besides what Allah has revealed or allies himself with Kuffar, etc and you label me as well as the 20+ scholars as Takfeeris. Now, Answer me this: Do you understand the difference between Masaa’il al Furuuc and those of Al Usuul? Is declaring, for example, Saudi Arabia an apostate state from the Masaa’il al Furuuc or Al Usuul? Intaa hadey ku deeqi weydo sow maaha: All left for me to say is Walaa taziru waaziratun Wizra ukhraa I will be held accountable for my deeds and you yours. I am free of what you do and you are free of what I do – each of us will be accountable only for his, so dhankaaga iska giiji adeer. May Allah guide us to the right path! p.s Once again, I warn you of Irja. Be ware of Irja for walaahi it will lead you to nothing but destruction. This is a sincere advice, akhi. Also research into the matters you aim to discuss for all has been discussed and debated by scholars. Wabillati Towfiq!

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: LX , you are at it again. What you are saying, ya LX, is what the typical Keligii Muslims say all the time. It’s what is used to justify the blood of Muslims near and afar. We have expounded this issue on the Dawlah Riddah thread, giving you what scholars said about this question, but you clearly chose to propagate the takfeeri ideologies, whose violent manifestations Somalia is experiencing today. Yaa Xiin, Allaah says in the Qur'an wa idaa qultum facdiluu and in another verse walaa yajriman-nakum shana'aanu qowmin calaa an-laa tacdiluu, icdiluu huwa aqrabu lit-taqwa Be just and do not let things become personal akhi, do not let your differences between individuals compell you to transgress against them. If you can't defend your position with evidence, resorting to declaring them takfeeris/Khawaarij is not a solution. You say I am propagating a Takfeeri ideology - what you are saying in fact is that the ideology of the scholars I have cited is a Takfeeri one! I have presented you the evidences from 20+ scholars, all whom are considered Kibaarul Culamaa, but of course you chose to call their Aqeedah a Takfeeri one. Wallaahi you are transgression has reached a new low. Your Aqeedah is tainted with Irja, yaa Xiin, and you have the audacity to call the ideology of Kibaarul Culamaa a Takfeeri one!

^^ Aamiin Ilaahay hana soo wada hanuuniyo dhamaanteen insha-Allah. Laakinse instead of calling me ignorant and resorting to insults, it would have been great f you were objective. Personally, I wouldn’t say that you are dwelling in the depths of ignorance; awfully misguided, but not ignorant. And it is because of your influence of, and inclination towards the Aqeedah of Irjaa why you tend argue for the legality of the Dastur, Ruling with other than what Allah has revealed, Alwalaa wal Baraa, etc, despite the fact that the majority of the scholars are upon a general consensus that these are all forms of Kufrul Akbar which dispel one from the realm of Islam; which means that taking an oath to uphold such a constitution as the current TFG one is clear Kufr. No one that I know of argued for what you argue for except that he is clouded by severe bouts of Irja. You are swimming in a mud puddle, saaxib, with the wave of Irja obfuscating your reasoning and sight, so much so that you cannot see the clear stream beside you, yet you call others ignorant. And If indeed I were an ignorant deviant for holding these views, and you know that I haven’t started a new form innovation but simply picked up the views from the writings of scholars, then wouldn’t it be pertinent to label all those who harbour such views with the same label? Would you call the scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Baaz, Ibn Katheer, Ash-Shanqiti, At-Tabari, Axmad Shaakir, Shawkani, hamud Ibn Uqala, Qurtubi, Al-khudayr, Ala-Shaykh, Al-ulwan, Al Ghunayman, Ibn Humayd, Ibn C.wahaab and all the scholars of Najd, and all the various scholars who reached the same conclusion ignorant for holding these views? I have simply regurgitated what the above scholars said on these boards: that Ruling besides what Allah has revealed is Kufr, that legislation is the sole domain of Allah and Dastuur is Kufr, that any form of alliance with the Kufaar and against the Muslims is Kufr. So they must be ignorant according to you? I have repeatedly warned you of Taqlid or being attached to a scholar and blindly following him whether right or wrong and I warn you again and again that Taqqlid will damage you saaxib, but you heed not! Research into the matters if you are sincere, instead of endlessly arguing for Baatil! Waa iga Nasiixa ahaan. Serenity, glad to see that you are still alive! Life has been rather hectic here, but all is going well. You cannot conform to laws made by a Kaafir, Serenity, and the international laws/charters are not, even in the slightest, in conformity with the Qur’an and Sunnah – they are poles apart! Wa billahi-t-tawfiiq

All of these constitutions claim that Islam will serve as the basic source for their Legislation, yet all that they do or legislate contravenes the very basic principles of Islam. 1. The Constitutional Oath Somalia 1960: Article 70 On assuming his functions, the President of the Republic shall take the following oath of loyalty to the State: «In the name of God I swear that I will discharge faithfully all my duties as President of the Republic and defend the Constitution with all my strength in the interest of the Country and the Nation». Somali TFG: Article 42 Before assuming the office and duties of the President, the President elect shall take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance. Such an oath shall be for the due execution of his/her office in a manner prescribed herein: - “In the name of Allah I swear that I will discharge faithfully all my duties as President in the interest of the people and that I will abide by the Charter and laws of the Somali Republic. Somaliland: Article 129 The Chairman of the Supreme Court, who is, at the same time, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, shall administer this constitutional oath to any person who is obliged to take an oath under the Constitution before that person can assume his office. In the same way, he shall also take an oath to be administered by the President. “I swear by Allah that I shall be true to the Islamic religion and my Somaliland country, and shall manage my people in equality and justice so long as I hold office.” Puntland: Article 97 Upon assuming functions, every high ranking officer shall take the following oath of loyalty to the Puntland State: “In the name of Allah, I swear that I will respect the Islamic Religion, discharge all my duties faithfully in the interest of the people and will abide by the Constitution and the Laws.” 2. Freedom of Religion: Somalia 1960: Article 29 Every person shall have the right to freedom of conscience and freely to profess his own religion and to worship it subject to any limitations which may be prescribed by law for the purpose of safeguarding morals, public health or order. However, it shall not be permissible to spread or propagandize any religion other than the religion of Islam(*). [Note (*): As amended by law No. 16 of 29 June 1963] Somaliland: Article 33: Every person shall have the right to freedom of belief, and shall not be compelled to adopt another belief. Islamic Sharia does not accept that a Muslim person can renounce his beliefs. Puntland: Article 24 No one can be forced to a faith; different from his/her believes. The Muslim person does not have the right to convert from the Islamic faith. 3. Supremacy of the Constitutional Law Somalia 1960: Article 5 1. The organization of the State and the relationships between the State and other persons, public or private, shall be governed by law. 2. Administrative acts contrary to law and legislative acts contrary to the Constitution may be invalidated on the initiative of the interested party in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Somali TFG: Article 3 1. The Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic shall be founded on the supremacy of the law and shall be governed in accordance with this Charter. 2. This Charter for the Transitional Federal Government shall be the supreme law binding all authorities and persons and shall have the force of law throughout the Somali Republic. If any law is inconsistent with this Charter the Charter shall prevail. 3. The validity, legality or procedure of enactment or promulgation of this Charter shall not be subject to challenge by or before any court or other State organ 4. Duty to Observe the Constitution and the Laws Somalia 1960: Article 47 Every person shall loyally observe the Constitution and the laws of the State. Somalia TFG: Article 1.1 The right to exercise sovereignty shall not be delegated to any individual, group or class, and no person shall arrogate to him or herself, or exercise any State authority, which does not emanate from this Charter or any laws of the Land not inconsistent with this charter. Somaliland: Article 34 1. Every citizen shall have the duty, in accordance with the law, to strengthen the unity of the nation, the protection of the sovereignty of the state, and the defence of the country and the religion. 2. Every person has the duty to respect the Constitution and the laws of the country. 3. Every person has the duty to pay promptly his taxes and other duties as imposed under the law. 4. Every person shall have the duty to care for, protect and save the environment. 5. The law shall determine the punishment for failure to fulfil the duties imposed in Clauses 1 to 4 (of this Article). Puntland: Article 38 1. Every citizen obligated to strengthen the unity and safeguarding the sustainability of Puntland State. 2. Every citizen shall safeguard Islamic Religion, the Puntland Constitution, the State Laws and the due taxes. 3. Every citizen shall participate in the National Defense of Puntland State, whenever the State recalls to the duty of army services. 4. A law shall establish the punishment that arises from non compliance with duties mentioned in the 1, 2 and 3 of this Article. 5. The Majority Rules: Somalia 1960: Article 70 The President of the Republic shall be elected, by secret ballot, by the National Assembly, with a majority of two thirds of its members on the first and second ballots, or by an absolute majority of its members in subsequent ballots. Somali TFG: Article 41 1. The President shall be elected by Parliament through a secret ballot, with a two-thirds (2/3) majority of its members in the first round whereas in the subsequent ballots shall be by simple majority. 2. In the second round of the elections, only the first six candidates shall be eligible whereas in the third round only the first two candidates shall be eligible for the final Presidential election. Somaliland: Article 40 The House of Representatives shall consist of 82 members who shall be directly elected by secret ballot in a free general election. Puntland: Article 14 The party that wins at least by 51% of the seats in the House of the Representatives shall form the Government. 6. Legislative Power Somalia 1960: Article 49 The legislative power shall be vested in the National Assembly Article 62 Delegation of Legislative Power The Assembly may delegate to the Government the power to issue, on specified subjects or matters and for a limited period, provisions having the force 0£ law. In delegating authority, the Assembly may establish the policy and issue directives. Somali TFG: Article 28: 1. The legislative powers of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia shall be vested in Parliament Article 33 Parliament shall discharge the following functions: - © Making legislation ; Somaliland: Article 38 1. The legislative powers of the Republic of Somaliland are vested exclusively in the Parliament which shall consist of two Houses - the House of Representatives and the House of the Elders. The power to legislate cannot be transferred to anyone outside the Parliament. 2. All bills passed by the Parliament shall come into force when the President publishes them in accordance with the Constitution. Puntland: Article 43 1. The legislative power is vested in the House of Representatives. 2. The House of Representatives shall consist of 66 deputies elected by the people. 7. Foreign Relations: Somalia 1960: Article 6 1. The generally accepted rules of international law and international treaties duly concluded by the Republic and published in the manner prescribed for legislative acts shall have the force of law. Somali TFG: Article 69 1. The Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic shall uphold the rules of international law and all international treaties applicable to the Somali Republic and subject to the legislative Acts of Parliament, international laws accepted and adopted shall be enforced. Somaliland: Article 10 2. The Republic of Somaliland recognises and shall act in conformity with the United Nations Charter and with international law, and shall respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 7. The state of the Republic of Somaliland shall oppose terrorism (and similar acts), regardless of the motives for such acts. Puntland: Article 11 3. Puntland Regional Government recognizes and applies the UN Charter and the International Laws and respects the International Appeals for human rights, not contrasting the Islamic Sharia and Puntland Laws. 4. Puntland recognizes and applies the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, and Inter Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) and the Organization of Islamic Co-operation. 8. The President: Somali TFG: Article 36 1. When a Law has been passed by Parliament, it shall be presented to the President for Assent. 2. The President shall, within twenty-one (21) days after the Law has been presented to him/her for assent under sub-section (1), notify the Speaker that he/she assents to the Law or refuses to assent to it. Article 44 The President shall have authority to: - (b) Assent and Sign into law, legislation passed by the parliament and regulations and decrees approved by the Council of Ministers; Somaliland: Article 77 4. Any bill passed or approved by both Houses of Parliament on a 2/3s (two thirds) majority or more shall not be referred back (to the Parliament) by the President who shall thereby sign it. If the President considers that the bill is in conflict with an Article or Articles of the Constitution, he shall inform the Speakers and the Attorney General, who shall refer it to the Constitutional Court. 6. If the President fails to sign a bill forwarded to him by Parliament within the requisite period, and has not referred it back to Parliament, then the bill shall henceforth become law, and shall be promulgated by the House which forwarded it (to the President). Puntland: Article 54 The president: 7. Shall have the power to grant amnesty and burden and commuting sentences after having received. 15. The President shall have the power of rejection of those legislative lows presented by the House. The President should clarify the reason of his rejection (see 47.15).

Shaykh Abdul Majeed Bin Muhammed Al-Munee’ says: Regarding those present day rulers who have usurp the rule over the Muslim lands, those who feign their Islaam; in reality these governments have fallen into Kufr from all angles and have performed many of the negations of Islaam. Some of which are as follows; Firstly: They legislate and make laws in competition with Allaah without any permission from Him. Allaah says: "Are many lords differing among themselves better, or the One Allaah, Supreme and Irresistible?” [Yusuf 12:39] Secondly: They obey those who make national and international laws and obey these Kufr legislations; making them the supporters of the Shirk. For example, their following of the rules and regulations emanating from the United Nations, which contradict the orders of the Islamic Shari’ah; in fact Allaah has declared war against such actions. He says: “What! Have they partners, who have established for them some religion without the permission of Allaah?” [Ash-Shura 42:21] And Allaah says: “Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them, the Shaytaan (Satan) has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes. This, because they said to those who hate what Allaah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter"; but Allaah knows their (inner) secrets.” [Muhammad 47:25-26] Thirdly: They rule and judge by other than what Allaah has revealed. Allaah says: “And whosoever does not rule and judge by what Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir (disbeliever).” [Al-Ma’ida 5:44] And Allaah says, “But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.” [An-Nisa 4:65] Fourthly: They ally themselves with the Kuffar from the Jews, the Christians and the Mushrikeen. Not only do they ally with them, but work to protect and support them, preventing anyone from even calling such people disbelievers; convening agreements and contracts that they will offer them military support by themselves, their speeches and their wealth. Allaah says: “And whosoever allies with them (the Kuffar) is one of them.” [Al-Ma’ida 5:44] And Allaah says: “Hast you not observed the Hypocrites say to their disbelieving brothers among the People of the Book? ‘If you are expelled, we too will go out with you, and we will never hearken to any one in your affair; and if you are attacked (in fight) we will help you’. But Allaah is witness that they are indeed liars.” [Al-Hashr 59:11] Such are those treacherous rulers who fight and seek out the sincere Mujahideen and Muwahideen (those who do not perform Shirk), imprisoning them utilising all manners of expense and equipment such that they can show their servitude to their masters, the Jews and Christians – and May Allaah give them their due! They also demonstrate their complete devotion and love towards the Christians and the Mushrikeen; whereas Allaah says: “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allaah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.” [Al-Mujadila 58:22] Fifthly: They permit the Haraam (forbidden) matters by giving permits to banks for example, which allow the Riba (interest) when Allaah has said: “Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition to Unbelief: the Unbelievers are led to wrong thereby: for they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, in order to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allaah and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their course seems pleasing to them. But Allaah guides not those who reject Faith.” [At-Tawba 9:37] Sixth: They mock the Deen of Islaam by giving permits to those who laugh at and mock the verses of the Qur’aan. They legislate laws which make it easy for the television and other media channels to show and permit actors, actresses, comedians to mock the Deen of Islaam. Allaah says: “Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His Signs, and His Messenger that ye were mocking?’ Make you no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.” [At-Tawba 9:65-67] These six points are only some of the points which negate the Islaam of those who claim authority over the Muslim lands in this day and age; we have not included any more for brevity. End of the Shaykh’s words! As to where Sharif’s government stands on these issues; any person whom Allah has endowed with the ability to perceive and comprehend the verses of the Qur’an and Ahadith can, without a shred of a doubt, figure out the reality as well as the severity of Sharif’s case. Generally, the Somali regime is an APOSTATE regime by all counts! And I add, and believe, what Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdasi said regarding these types of rulers: • We do not believe in rebelling against the Imams of the Muslims, their leaders and rulers of the Muslims even if they are corrupt. We do not remove a hand from their obedience as long as they command to good. We believe that obedience to them is obligatory as long as they do not command with disobedience and we supplicate for their guidance and righteousness. • We believe that it is obligatory to rebel against the Imams of Kufr from the disbelieving rulers that are emplaced over the necks of the Muslims. We believe that they have apostated from the Dīn due to their replacement of the Sharī’ah and legislation with Allāh, and seeking judgment in the Tawāghīt of the east and the west, and allying with the enemies of Allāh and enmity towards His Dīn and His allies. • And [we believe] that Da’wah, action, and expending efforts for the purpose of replacing them is obligatory upon the Muslims - every one according to his capability. Whoever was incapable of carrying a weapon [against them], he is not incapable of assisting the one who carries it, even if by Duā’. [We believe] that the material and spiritual preparation for that is an obligation from the obligations of the Dīn. • And we believe that fighting them is foremost than fighting other than them because the Kufr of apostasy is more severe than the original Kufr according to consensus. Also, because preserving the capitol of the wealth is given precedence of profit and because Jihād of defense is given precedence over the offensive Jihād and because beginning with Jihād against those who are closer to us from the Kuffār is foremost than waging Jihād against those who are further away. • Also, no one has given reign for the Jews, Christians or others of the Kuffār in the lands of the Muslims and made the wealth of the Muslims and their lands a gift to them except these apostates. • We assert that those who hold others back from Jihād against them with flimsy misconceptions such as the claim of there being no migration or distinction [between the ruler and the common fold when in battle] or the lack of a strong Imām over the people of Islām, [we assert] that they are the people of ignorance and misguidance that have issued legal verdicts without knowledge so they are astray and lead others astray. They have abandoned the Dīn and abandoned giving it victory. • Rather, we believer that fighting them under all circumstances and removing them and replacing them until the Dīn is entirely for Allāh is from the most obligatory of the obligations. The migration that is necessary for that is only the migration to Allāh with Tawhīd, and migration to His Messenger. sallallāhu ‘alayhi was sallam with adherence. And complete serious preparation for the likes of this action is obligatory according to us and it is foremost to the individual actions and wasted efforts. • And if standing up to them, and hastening to replace this is not obligatory except upon the one who is capable, then the condition for [it being an] obligation is not a condition for its permissibility. Hence, it is permissible for a person to fight them even if by himself and even if he is certain of martyrdom and not gaining victory. Jihād is an act of worship and an obligation that is legislated until the Day of Judgment.

Xiinow, in all fairness, you are an amazing character saaxib! howla aan is lahayn ayaad isku dhex qooshaysaa. Xukunkii baad diidantahay inuu gaalnima yahay markaasaad ku ordeysaa dowladii oo aad ku dabakh is leedahay. Markay gaalnimo meesha timaado, maxaa sababay weeye su’aashu? Maxaa keenay gaalnimada? Waa in loo noqdaa Xukunkii marka sow maaha! In the beginning you started the thread on a clear, unambiguous road: we were discussing the Xukm as your title and responses detailed, but now that your thinking is imprecise, you’ve decided to jump to the application of the Xukm upon the TFG. The TFG will or will not be declared an apostate regime based on this Xukm we are discussing, right? and of course as well as many others. Refer to my other post for the application of this Xukm, but for now we are not yet done with the Xukm and this post shall continue discussing the Xukm before jumping to Al-Walaa wal Baraa. Now try to comprehend the following: Outlined below are the ways in which a ruler may commit the greater disbelief (Kufrul Akbar) that takes a person out of Islam (And I want you to pay attention here and understand this clearly): • If the ruler who rules by other than the revelation of Allah challenges the legal obligation to rule by the Shari’ah then he is outside Islam. This is the meaning of what has been reported by at-tabari on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said that there is no disagreement among the ulama about someone who challenges the legitimacy of Shari’ah: that this is a fundamental point about which everyone agrees; and that anyone who challenges a fundamental point of belief or even a secondary issue that all the ulama have agreed about or who denies any part of the revelation out of hand, is a disbeliever and is nopt part of this community. • If such a ruler does not challenge the legitimacy of the Shari’ah, but believes that he rules by a better system of law than that which the Prophet observed, may Allah bless him and grant him peace; a system which in his opinion is more coherent and more suited to the needs of the people in the face of their challenging needs and circumstances, then there can be no doubt that he too is a disbeliever. He has formulated a rule that can never compete with that of Allah. There is no issue whatsoever whose answer is not contained in the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, either explicitly or implicitly; whether or not a person knows this is a different matter. • If a ruler does not believe that what he has is better than the Shari’ah, but still thinks that it is at least equal to it, then he is like the others. This is disbelief that takes him out of the community, because it seeks to equate a creature with his Creator. This is also true of someone who believes that a ruler has a right to deviate from the Shari’ah in the way that the three types of rulers outlined above do. • It is even worse still when a person stubbornly supports his own rule in opposition to that of Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, aggrandizing it at the expense of the Shari’ah. This is what modern secular rulers do, whose recourse is to French, British and American law, or to whatever else they please to chose from non-Muslim systems. What could be greater disbelief than this? What could be more excessive than this in contradicting the declaration of faith, La ilaha illalaah. • Finally, there is the disbelief of many of the chieftains of the tribes and the clans of the Bedouins and others like them who cling to the tales of their ancestors, to their habits and their traditions. These form a kind of inherited common law (is this not the Xeerbeegti that our Nomads use as law?) by which they rule themselves in preference to, and in spite of, the revealed law of Allah. • Then there is the type of disbelief that does not take one out of the community, and which Ibn Abbas’ termed Kufr Duna Kufr. Thus, someone who is overcome by his own desires in a particular situation may act contrary to the Shari’ah, and yet still be aware that he is acting wrongly. He may later reproach himself for his error and failure to follow the guidance of Allah. Even though this action does not take him out of the community, it is still a very great sin, greater than fornication or drinking or theft. Allah has called this disbelief so it is more grave than other wrong actions which have not been described in this fashion. (Aala-Shaykh, Taxkiimul Qawaaniin, P 92) Now, my friend, if you truly are a man of sincerity who is out to seek knowledge, as you seem to claim, mull over these words, and discernment of these plainly apparent concepts that have somehow become impenetrable will become manifest Insha-Allah.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: LX, I am not sure what you are discussing here. I gave you what scholars say about the tafseer of the verse you often cite to invalidate the faith of current somali leaders. you are writing more grammer than truth awoowe, and even managed to confuse me about your stance. Do you beleive TFG is dawladah riddah? Its ministers? Soldeirs? Those who support them and side with them ? Make your stance first. Then bring your reasoning in the form of evidence. Xiin, This is because you haven’t understood the concepts you are discussing clearly, despite your purported exuberance on the subject, and your is but a matter of postulation and a staunch defiance when faced with the truth. Apart from quoting a few passages, you haven’t been able to explain what exactly the concept of ruling besides what Allah has revealed entails. You quoted Albani’s explanation of Kufr Duna Kufr, (and I will get back to this later) but you haven’t provided any real sense of meaning as to what it implies. I have cited the opinion of up to 12 scholars, yet all this means nothing to you since you are adamant in your claim for which you have no sound evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, except for Taqliid. I have asked you to clarify your position that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is only a sin and not Kufrul Akbar by taking into account the historical events that I have mentioned in my previous post, yet you have sidelined the questions. And just so that the truth is made clear, below is a list of some of the scholars who have derived the meaning from the Ayahs regarding ‘ruling besides what Allah has revealed’ to be Kufrul Akbar which takes one out of the fold of Islam: 1. Shaykhal Islam Ibn Taymiyyah 2. Al Hafidh Ibn Katheer 3. Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baaz 4. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saleh Al-Cuthaymeen 5. Shaykh Mahmud Shaakir 6. Ibn Jarir At-tabari 7. Umar Al-Ashqar 8. Al-Allamah Muhammad Al-Amin As-Shanqiti 9. Imaam Ahmad Shaakir 10. Al Allaamah Muhamad Ibn Ibrahim ala-Shaykh 11. Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ghunaymaan 12. Abdurrazaq Afiifi 13. Shaykh Abdurahman ibn Muhammad Ibn Qasim 14. Shaykh hamad Ibn Atiq An-Najdi 15. Imaam Abdullah Ibn Humayd 16. Shaykh Muhammad Hamid Al-Fiqqi 17. Imaam Ash-Shawkaani 18. Abdulatif Ibn Abdurahman Ibn Hasan 19. Abdurahman Ibn Hasan 20. Shaykh Muhammad Shakir Ash-Sharif 21. Salih Ibn Ibrahim Al-Layhu 22. Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan 23. Shaykh Albani Now, only one thing remains: Either they are all wrong (which means you should call them the unmerited names that you call us) or you have clearly not been able to comprehend a thing! I have given you the sources and quotes from some of the above and the rest are available upon request, even though I doubt that they would augment your insight into the matter where the previous scholars have failed. You quoted Sheikh Ibn Baaz, Albani and Cuthaymeen as your references for the belief that you hold, but despite the evidence of their saying that I have cited, you remain adamant with just the quote that you have happened to come across. You have all the proof that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is Kufrul Akbar which takes one outside the Millah, but of course you are not satisfied except with your three quotes. I ask you, then, which view of the Shaykhs that we both cited is abrogated and which is the correct one? As for your question: Do you beleive TFG is dawladah riddah? Its ministers? Soldeirs? Those who support them and side with them ? It is a good question, but I fail to understand your fervency. You have a habit of mixing different issue in order to muddle the subject. You should stop flipping from topic to topic and distinguish between the issues concerned. The topic in discussion as you have clearly titled it yourself is: 1- Ruling with Other than What Allah Revealed [Muslim Scholars’ take on the often-cited Quranic verse] This means, we are talking about the XUKM. Once we are done with the XUKM, then we can talk about applying the Xukm to whom it concerns! You haven’t settled or grasped the fundamentals of the Xukm and you are running to its application. Haysku dhex wadin arrimaha eek ala saar and finish what you started yaa Sheikh!

^^ You've got the wrong end of the stick, my friend, and quite stubbornly too! It is purely a matter of Aqeedah and Not Fiqh! And the fight in Somalia is between two parties solely on the basis of their Aqeedah - one with the correct Aqeedah opposing the Kuffar invading Muslim lands and the other with Faasid Aqeedah aiding the kuffar invade a muslim land! And the khilaaf within the ummah is largely rooted in Aqeedah, yaa Xiin, not Fiqh!

Thier makeshift parliament has even passed a law declaring Somalia's form of government as Islamic. So calling them as murtadiin is madness. Xiin, lets hope that you are not defending Baatil here. Are you not aware of the PM's interview with VOA where he openly declared his Kufr and said we do not rule by the Shari'ah where cutting hands is permissible! But then, of course, you would ask me about his intentions!

Kufr or disbelief may occur as a result of the following: 1. Statement (Qawliyya) – statement of kufr by which a person leaves the fold of Islam such as insulting Allah or His messengers 2. Action (ficliyya) – action of kufr or shirk which negates Islam, such as throwing the Musxaf in the toilet or leaving the obligation of Islam such as Salah, Zakat etc. 3. Belief (ictiqaadiyah) – belief of kufr in the heart or acceptance of kufr • In the mas’ala of kufr or shirk, Aljuxuud (that someone is explained the xaq and then denies it) is not a condition • The condition is that did the person fall into a Naaqid (nullifier) or not? • That you consider the nullifier legal or xalaal is not a condition, whether it be by action or statement or belief. • Also al-ictiqaad – that you believe in the nullifier – is not a condition as the deviant Murji’ah would have us believe. This means that if you did an action or said a statement of kufr, it is not a condition that you believe or disbelieve it in your heart. It is enough that you acted or said it. Islam judges the apparent and anything inside is left to Allah to judge • The condition of Istixlaal or ictiqaad is applicable to the major sins. If a person repeats (israar) a major sin so often and makes it halaal for himself then this nullifies his Islam. If someone commits zina because of his desire then he has committed a major sin, similarly if he drinks. But if he says that it is halaal for him, then this now becomes kufr. Even if he doesn’t say it but ‘believes’ that it is halaal for him or generally halaal, then then it is also kufr. The rule of Takfir: Qaacidu Takfiir: The rule of Takfir as explained by Shaykhul Islam Ibn taymiyyah (Majmucul fatawa Vol 35 P101) is as follows: “Man ath-hara qawlan aw ficlan aw-ictiqaadan mukaffira wa thabata calayhi thubuutan sharciyyah fa innahu yuxkamu bi kufrihi itha tawaffarat shuruudul xukmi wantafat mawaanicuhu.” Which translates to: “Whoever manifests (because if someone hides a statement of kufr within his heart, he is a kaafir by Allah and by us he is a Muslim since we cannot judge the hidden) a statement or action or a belief that makes one a kaafir, and this statement or action or belief has become apparent from him according to Sharci (with witnesses or his claims, etc,) then he is judged for his Kufr when the conditions of this xukum are fulfilled and anything that negates this xukum is unavailable. • In order for someone to take the xukum of a kaafir, all the actions, statements of beliefs that nullify his Islam must be apparent or visible, because Shari’ah judges only with what is apparent. • If someone adopts or utters statements of kufr but hides it in his heart and does not manifest any of them, then he will be judged as a Muslim, no matter how much a Kaafir he is. He takes the Xukm of a Muslim in this world. • If he performs or utters kufr and manifests it, then we judge him with what is apparent, no matter how full of eemaan his heart is. • The prophet said: Inni lam u’umar an unaqiba quluuba naas wa an ashuqqa butuunahum • Umar said: naxnu naxkumu al-thawaahir, wallahu yatawalla-s-saraa’ir As for the conditions of the Xukm of Kufr or shrik it is divided into three: • The conditions of faacil (the person who is being judged) • The conditions of Ficil (the deed of kufr) • The conditions of Ithbaat (witnesses) 1 - The conditions of faacil (the person who is being judged): 1. He must be Baaliq (mature): Though the scholars differ – some saying that if he is intelligent enough while committing Kufr, then we take him to account for the kufr but don’t kill him until he matures. 2. He must be caaqil (sane) 3. an yakuna mukhtaaran - he must have been free and not coerced into uttering or committing kufr 4. an yakuna qaasidan lil ficli – he must have meant what he said or done and. If he is sleeping and utters kufr it won’t be ruled on him. 5. an yakuuna caamidan lil macna – he must have been aware of the meaning of his words or action and done them intentionally. (like the man of Bani Israel who said Allahuma anta cabdii wa ana rabbuka – Oh Allah you are my slave and I am your lord - out of delight. He did not mean it that way but came out spontaneously). He was mature, sane and he was not forced to utter these words. In fact he meant to utter these words, but he did not mean this specific meaning. 2 - The conditions of Ficil (the deed of kufr): There are two conditions of knowing whether the statement, action and belief is kufr: 1. that the statement, action or belief is kufr must be according to the Qur’an and Sunnah and consensus of the scholars of the salaf 2. that the statement, action or belief are clear kufr without any doubts (illaa an taraw kufran bawaaxan, fiihi cindakum minallahi burhan) as the prophet said. No room for uncertainties or sarbeeb 3 - The conditions of Ithbaat (evidence against the person): Clear evidence must be brought against the person in the forms of: • Ictiraaf: . i.e. two witnesses stepping forth, self confession from the person himself, etc. • Istifaatha: meaning general knowledge of the public being aware of that person’s kufr. If someone declares publicly his kufr, then the public’s knowledge of his Kufr is a testimony. Impediments: Nullifiers (Mawaanic) of the Xukm: After mounting all the evidence against the person, there are some thing that must be absent from the person in order for him/her to take the Xukm of a Kaafir. If the person has fallen into kufr and all evidence is set against him with witnesses, BUT is forced into it, then we have a nullifier of the xukm of Kufr. The nullifiers that prevent the person from taking the xukm of a kaafir are divided into two: 1. the nullifiers in Ficil (the deed): • the deed or statement of kufr could have been ambiguous and not clear • the evidence in Qur’an or Sunnah is not clear enough and the scholars are not in clear agreement about it • the witnesses’ account is weak or they are immature, or not caadil, or insane, etc 2. the nullifiers in Faacil (the doer): The mawaanic in the doer of the deed are called Al-cawaaridh al Ahliyyah in Usuulul Figh. These are things that overcome the person suddenly and change his character or personality. They are of two types: • One in which the person has no choice, e.g. a sudden form of insanity that inflicts the person • One in which the person has a choice and plays a part • The nullifiers of the Faacil stem out from the conditions of the Faacil and they are: o Baaliq: this excludes the immature o Sane: this excludes the insane. If someone were to shout ‘I am a prophet’ and we know that he is sane, does that mean we judge him with the Xukm? o Free: this excludes the coerced. If someone is forced to utter words of Kufr, and his life is in danger, then the Xukm cannot be applied to him for doing so. o He should have meant what he said: this excludes those who didn’t mean to utter words of kufr or actions. Again this is not for all statements and actions of Kufr. Can someone who openly insults Allah be asked for his intentions of insulting Allah? Can someone who burns the Qur’an be asked what his intentions were for burning it? No, because these are actions that come to manifest only after the passing away of the heart as the scholars have said. And this is contradiction to what the deviant Murji’ah believe. o He should have meant it in meaning: this excludes those who intend different meaning What if someone errs: • Maanicul Khata’a (Error): if someone errs in the statements or actions and beliefs of Kufr, the xukm doesn’t apply to him. If someone who wanted to shoot a deer accidentally shoots a person, then this wasn’t intentional but he erred. He still takes the xukm of killing a Muslim, but by mistake, not intentionally. He meant to shoot; he meant to kill, but not the person. The prophet said: Innalaaha tajaawaza can ummatii al khata’a wan nisyaana wama-s-tukrihuu calayhi. • Khata’ fil iraada (error in intention): Before the prohibition of wine was brought down, Ali said that one day Abdrahman bin Awf invited them to a feast. After they ate, he brought them some drinks including some wine. They drank the wine and soon became intoxicated and said some things. Soon came the time for prayer and Ali was asked to lead the prayer (some narrations say it was not Ali but another sahaba). In the prayer he read Suratul kaafirun in which he said ‘Qul ya ayyuhal kafirun, Acbudu ma tacbudun, wa naxnu nacbudu ma tacbudun.’ The Sahabi was sane, he was mature, he did intend to pray and he intended to read the Surah. He fulfilled all of the conditions for the Xukm to be applicable to him save for one. He did not mean it in that meaning – in the way he uttered it and because of the intoxicant, he uttered words of Kufr. Remember that wine was legal by then and the prophet did not perform the xukm on them or call them kuffar because of the Maanic of the Xukm. The hadith is in Sunan Abi Da’ud and Tirmidhi • Khata’ fi a-ta’weel (error in interpretation): If the person blamed is using some Ay’ah from the Qur’an or Hadith as evidence to support his deeds of Kufr, though the Ayah or hadith are not applicable but that he had misunderstood or misconstrued them in meaning (wadcu-l-daliili fi qayri mawdhicihi or placing evidence where it is not applicable), then this negates applying the Xukm on him. This is called Khata’ fi –t-ta’weel or error in interpretation. • If after proving that he had made an error in interpretation, the person is corrected and he still adheres to his former belief, statement or action of Kufr, then the Xukm of Kufr becomes applicable to him. Proof of Khata’ fi Ta’weel (error in interpretation) s a nullifier of the Xukm: • Ijma’ of the Sahaba: During the khilafa of Cumar, a man known as Qudama ibn Madcuun and his friends became drunk with wine. They were caught and brought to justice. But Qudama said that I have an Ayah to prove that wine is xalaal. The people were perplexed. Didn’t Allah made wine xaraam in Surah Ma’ida. Qudama read the Ayah in the same Surah (leysa cala-ladiina aamanu junaaxun fiimaa dacimuu ithaa mat-taqaw…). The issue was taken to Umar, who ordered the Sahaba to read to him the Ayahs that prohibit wine and clean him of his wrong understanding of the Ayahs. If after this he is still bent on his wrong interpretation and belief, he is a kaafir, said Umar, kill him and his friends. If however, he accepts the proofs and has simply made a wrong interpretation of the Ayah, then he is just a Muslim who has erred, then make sure you flog him for the Hadd of wine. • There was a time when Umar and Ammaar were on a journey. The time for prayer came but no water could be found. Some of the men had Janaaba too. Ammaar who had Janaaba, rolled on the sand and after filling himself with sand, as if to cleanse himself, went to pray. Umar however, did not pray. He did not pray because he refused to and he was well aware of the hadith the one who leaves prayer. But at the time, the prophet did not teach them how Tayammum was done. Ammaar made an ijtihaad by rolling himself in the sand and then prayed. The prophet corrected him, saying that rubbing the hands and face alone was enough. Umar however was not reprimanded for not praying. He was a Mujtahid, his Ijtihaad was wrong but he was not scolded, or called a kaafir for leaving the prayer. • Abu Dhar took a few goats he had along with some goats of the prophet and went outside Madina to a place known as Rabada (the place where he resorted to in old age and finally died). His family went with him and soon there was scarcity of water. For a whole week he did not pray because he had Janaba. This is before the prophet taught them how to bathe from Janaba. After one week Abu Dharr came back to Madina and told the prophet of his situation, saying how can he pray without water to bathe. The prophet told him As-saciidu tayyib, wuduu’ul muslim, walaw lam yajidil maa’a cashara siniin, in the narration of At-tabarani he says twenty years. This sahabi was not applied with the xukm of kufr. • Adiyy ibn abi xaatib misinterpreted the Ayah of the Qur’an (wa kulu washrabu xataa yatabayyana lakumul khaytul abyadu minal khaytil aswadi minal fajr…). Meaning (...and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your fast till the nightfall.). Adiyy used to take two ropes, one black and one white and place them under his head. He used to eat until he could visibly differentiate between the two ropes, and often this would be when day breaks. When at a later time the prophet came to know of this, he reprimanded him saying inna wisaadaka la cariidh (indeed your pillow is wide – meaning wide enough to cover the rising sun) but he did not tell him to repeat the fasts that he performed in this manner. The prophet corrected him saying innamaa thaalika bayaadu nahaari wa sawaadul layli – meaning the Ayah refers to the light of the day and the darkness of the night and not the ropes as he thought. In many such examples, Shariah shows that when a person makes an error in interpretation and falls into kufr, he can be pardoned due to his false interpretation. But NOT all errors in interpretation can act as a valid excuse for kufr committed, thereby preventing one from being applied with the xukm of takfiir. For Ta’weel or error in interpretation to be applicable as a valid nullifier of the Xukm of kufr, it must meet three conditions: a – The Ta’weel that you’ve used has to have a basis or root in the Arabic language. E.g. the case of Adiyy ibn abi Xaatid when he misinterpreted (khaytul abyadu minal khaytil aswad ‘Khayd’ in the Arabic language means rope b – Your Ta’weel and interpretation has to have basis in Shari’ah. i.e. there must be an Ayah or a hadith or a Ijmac of the scholars that you have erred in its interpretation. c – The person using the Ta’weel has to have some concrete knowledge of Ta’weel and tafseer. If everyone went about his own interpretation, the religion would be reduced to mere personal interpretation. Qadi Iyaad says: if the Ta’weel in the Ayah is clear on its meaning, it will not be accepted from the person to have misunderstood it. Ignorance (Jahli): To say that ignorance is always a valid excuse is wrong and to say that ignorance is never a valid excuse is also wrong. The truth is between the two: 1. First we look t the type of action or kufr that the person has committed by which he is said to be ignorant of: • If it is a general thing of the shar’ah, known in religion by necessity, etc then ignorance will not serve as an excuse. E.g. if he says I did not know that Zakat was obligatory on me. • If it is a complicated aspect of the religion, which the scholars know but most of the people don’t, then ignorance can be applicable. E.g a man marries a woman along with her aunt without knowledge that it was forbidden. 2. We look at the situation of the ignorant person – is he newly reverted to Islam or has he been a Muslim all along? 3. Then we look at the place where the person has committed the act, whether it is Darul Islam or Darul Kufr. E.g someone reverted and doesn’t live in a Muslim community to teach him all the necessary information! Ignorance would not prevent one from taking the xukm of takfir if he lives in a Muslim land. 4. We also look at where the person grew up – deserted Bedouin land and villages or towns? 5. We also look whether the person who claims ignorance was mutamakkin li-tacallum wal cilmi – i.e. was he in a place where he was able to attain knowledge and had access to it? The person who is a mutamakkin and had access cannot be excused for ignorance. For further information you can read Al majmuucul mudh-hab fi qawaacidil madh-hab by Xaafid Salaaxudin al caalaa’i, Vol 1, or Al manthur lil qawaacid by Zarkashi, vol 2.