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.

Xiin, Sheikh Albani in his recording of fitnat At-Takfir said: “It was from the known rules from the culamaa that they used to say ‘bring evidence and then believe; do not believe and then bring the evidence.” Unfortunately, what you are doing is the latter – trying to concoct evidence for some deeply held notions. But we shall soon if any of your evidence amounts to anything. The trouble you, my friend, are having is multifaceted. And from my discussions with you, it seems that you have not grasped the concept of Takfir in its entirety. I say on the onset that the declaring of a particular belief, saying or action as Kufrul Akbar is not the same as declaring every single specific individual who committed them to be a Kaafir! When we say that ruling without what Allah has revealed is Kufrul Akbar, this does not automatically declare every individual ruler a Kaafir without exception, as you may think. Takfir, as I keep mentioning to you repeatedly, has conditions and impediments that need to be scrutinized before the application of the actual Xukm. The reason, I believe, why you are protecting these beliefs of yours is in the basis of Aqeedah, not Fiqh as you may want to call it. It is because of your separation of actions from Eeman and your assertion that Kufr comes only as a result of Ictiqaad. And this erroneous principle has been refuted at length by many scholars. And I say this to you again, NO we are not in agreement on the concept of Eeman yet! Either you are deliberately being ambiguous about it or you are basing your ideas on inconcrete opinions. As for your constant labeling of those opposing your ideas as Khawaarij, this shows that, just as you have an ambiguous understanding of the concept of Takfeer, similarly, your understanding of the Khawaarij and their characteristics is somewhat muddled. As regards your fatwa of Sheikh Ibn Baaz, as well as the other scholars you cite, you are using them to imply that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is only a sin and not major Kufr, unless they consider it to be permissible, not because you have grasped the concepts of their fatawa but you have happened to come across them. I say to you again yaa Xiin, Be ware of Taqliid – Do not attach yourself to personalities, follow the scholars for their Xaq and what is in alignment with the Quran and Sunnah. Do not blindly follow a scholar in order to extract evidence to support your argument, but support him on the Xaq. Or would you say that Shaykh Ibn Baaz (and Sh. Albani) changed their views in the later years? And if you are fully aware of the controversy and discussions surrounding the Sheikhs’ fatawa, how come you have not come across the sources of the same Sheikhs that I cited to you that clearly label ruling besides what Allah revealed to be Kufrul Akbar? Shaykh Ibn Baaz also permitted becoming member of parliaments and for this he was refuted strongly. And we know too well the issue of Fitnatul Khaleej. As for the Noble Sheikh, raximahullah, we say concerning him the same thing he himself said concerning a Fatwa of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn ibraahim Ala-Sheikh. He (Sheikh Ibn Baaz) said: “Muhammad ibn Ibrahim is not infallible, he is but a scholar from the scholars. He is sometimes correct and sometimes in error and he is not a Prophet nor a Messenger. Likewise sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Katheer and other scholars. All of them are sometimes correct and they sometimes err, but only what conforms to the truth is taken from their statements and as for what opposes the truth, then it is rejected from the one who said it.” So what the Sheikh is saying is that if the scholar’s statements are in alignment with the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah then they should be followed, if not they are to be rejected. And one of the conditions for the Kufr of the ruler that Sheikh Ibn Baaz cited is the Istixlaal of it in his heart. And the verse he was referring to was Ma’ida 44. But istixlaal is an entirely different concept! Most, if not all, of the rulers who have replaced Allah’s laws with the Dastuur do not make istixlaal of it – for the belief alone makes them Kuffar. Rather, they are aware of what they are doing, but because of varying worldly reason the chose not to apply the Shariah. Xafidh al Xaakami says: the one who commits a Kabira (major sin) disbelieves if he permits it. Rather he disbelieve merely by his belief in the permissibility of that which Allah and his messenger forbade even if he does not commit it, because at that point he is a Mukathib of the Book and a Mukathib of the Messenger of Allah, and this is Kufr according to the Quran and Sunnah and Ijma. So whoever rejects a matter about which there is consensus, which is known in the religion by necessity, then there is no doubt in his Kufr. (Ma’arij al Qubuul vol 2/438) An-Nawawi says: if someone apostates by rejecting an obligation or permitting an forbiddance, then his Islam is invalid until he turns back to his belief and restates the Shahadateyn. (Al-Majmuc vol 19/231) And how many forbiddances these rulers permit today! Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Ashaykh in Taxkiinul Qawaaniin also outlined that the ruler who challenges the obligation to rule by Shari’ah is a outside Islam. There is no dispute that to lay off the Shariah aside, claiming that it is lacking or deficient, or because it is not suitable at a given period of time, or for fear that the disbelievers might have reason to attack us, or to mellow it down to suit the fashion of the times, is blatant Kufr as Qahtani noted. And these, above, are the prime reasons adopted by the rulers who do not apply the Shari’ah today! To ally oneself with a ruler whose rules are contradictory to what Allah has revealed or to approve of his implementation of his legislation, or to be submissive to his authority, when submission belongs to Allah alone, is a contradiction to the declaration of faith. And the general consensus among the scholars is that legislation is the sole domain of Allah and no democracy or Dastuur can stand in comparison to what the Most Supreme has ordained. To override the Shari’ah takes one out of the fold of Islam. So whoever claims the right to set laws other than Allah’s laws to govern the country has fallen into Shirk of Amr (Alaa lahul khalqu wal amru) and has attributed to himself the Divine Attributes of Allah, thereby himself a contender against Allah, walciyaadu Billah. This, in today’s world is quite prevalent! Ibn Taymiyyah says the one who rejects the forbiddance of any clear, frequently narrated forbiddances such as Fawaaxish, Dhulm, alcohol, etc after proof has reached him, then he is a Kaafir. (majmuc al fataawa vol 7 609-610) How many fawaaxish and Haraam are permitted today? Ibn Hajar also narrated the same in his Fatxul Baari The Shaykh of the Mufassiriin, Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, that it does not mean that the rejection must come from a belief inside the heart in order to be Kufrul Akbar, as the leaders of the Irjaa have alleged. A person can reject something on the outside whilst fully believing it in his heart. This is called Juxuud and is explained in the Quran when Allah said regarding the people of Fircown (‘wa jaxaduu bihaa wastayqanathaa anfusuhum dhulman wa culuwaa..). what is evident in this Ayah is that Juxuud or rejection is Kufrul Akbar and clearly takes one out of the fold of Islam. This is because Pharoah and his disciples, as Allah has mentioned in the verse, clearly knew the truth with which Musa (A.S) was sent, but chose to ignore it out of willful arrogance. So the rejection here came from their actions and not from the belief in their hearts. And this is in agreement with Ibn Jarir’s interpretation that the rejection comes does not necessarily come from the heart. What is of great interest to me here is that you’ve used Ibn Abbas’s Kufr Duna Kufr, just as I predicted in my earlier posts that you would. We are going to look at what Ibn Abbas was referring to by Kufr Duna Kufr in great detail - but before we do that lets look at a few examples as they may further elucidate what we are talking about. So I want you to shed some light, in the context of your argument of course, on the following: Who did Abu Bakar fight after the demise of the prophet? Why did he fight them? They apostates! how did they become Murtadeen? Who were the Cubaydiyeen and why were they fought? Why were they declared Murtadeen? Specify the ruling of Ibn Taymiyyah of the Tatars? Why did he call them Murtadeen to be killed and fought? Once you answer these questions, we can proceed of course to Kufr Duna Kufr… p.s. the concept of Takfir is an entirely different topic on its own, so don’t amalgamate it here. It is related yes, but this is much broader. It is because of the understandings of Takfir, its conditions and impediments that necessitate taking a ruling of Kufr. I will make a separate topic for that. We are not done with talking about Ruling besides What Allah has revealed yet to be jumping. As for the reason why Shabaab made Takfeer on the TFG regime (not the entire polical community as you want to assert) would be made clear once you grasp the notion of Takfir as well as the concepts of Eeman and Kufr clearly.

Allah has made the Muslim Ummah into a Just nation (ummatan wasatan). An Ummah in the middle between two extreme ends: between being extreme in religion and being negligent; between being overzealous and being apathetic; between being excessive and being deficient. Islam adopts a middle stance in affairs so as not to make religion neither too extreme on people to be demanding nor too insignificant to be worthless. The prophet (p.b.u.h) informed us that there will divisions among this Ummah and that it will be divided into 73 sects – all of whom will enter hellfire except for one. And this one group is described by the prophet as those who are on (following) what he and his companions are on. And this is where the name Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaacah stems from. The prophet didn’t only tell us that there will be Khilaaf within the Ummah but he also told us how to save oneself when this occurs – and this is by sticking to the Sunnah of the prophet and the Khulafaa Rashideen. But many people appear to have distorted the teachings of the Prophet and came up with innovations that contradict these teachings. Among them are the Murji’ah and the Jahmiyyah When it comes to the mas’ala of Eemaan and Kufr, these groups have transgressed and innovated ideas that went against the teachings of the prophet as well as the understanding of the Salaf. • The Murji’ah have transgressed thinking that it was a benefit to the religion. They prohibited making Takfir on any Muslim as long as he believed in the Messenger of Allah and pronounced the declaration of faith, despite whatever actions of kufr or shirk he performed. They held the notion that the actions of the limbs are not part of Eeman, therefore even if you were to bow to Satan or burn the Qur’an you would still be a Mu’min with complete Eeman and destined for paradise. They believe that actions were simply there to complete the Eeman, but not necessarily part of Eeman. There are many other sects with varying degrees of deviance that stemmed up from this group. • The Khawaarij on the other hand, are innovators who have transgressed in the magnification of sins and turning them into major sins in order to prevent people from falling into them. They quickly declared Takfir on whoever fell into these sins. Their claim is that when one falls into a major sin, he wasn’t a Muslim anyways, for if he was he wouldn’t rush into what Allah had forbidden him and he wouldn’t have chosen his whims and desires over the commands of Allah. These are the people whom the prophet said he would destroy them the way people of Ad’ were destroyed and Ali burned them. They are quicker to leave the fold of Islam than an arrow would leave the bow. The correct stance of Ahlu Sunnah is between these two extremes: they adopt a moderate stance between these two deviant groups. They do not strip Islam entirely from the corrupt person or ruler upon the religion as is the view of the Khawarij, nor do they declare them to be eternally in the fire as is the view of the Muctazilah, nor do they negate from him the generality of Eeman, and they do not describe him with absolute Eeman, like the Murji’ah, rather, they say: he is a believer who is deficient in Eeman, or a believer with his Eeman who is corrupt due to his sins, as Sheikh Al Maqdasi described them. But let’s first look at a few points about the stance of Ahlu Sunnah on Eeman and kufr, before going to the Murji’ah and Khawaarij: The stance of Ahlu Sunnah on Eeman and kufr: • They believe that Eeman comprises of belief in the heart (ictiqad), statement of the tongue (qowl) and action of the limbs (camal) • They believe that Eeman increases and decreases – it increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience • Qowl without camal is of no use and amounts to nothing and similarly Camal without qowl and ictiqad is also valueless • They believe that the Muslim can never be a Mu’min until he combines all the three concepts • They believe that A mu’min can say “I am a Mu’min Insha-Allah” this is called the masa’ala of Istithnaa afraid of giving tazkiya to themselves some say it is Jaa’iz and others say it is Mustaxaab • They believe that Kufr also comes about as a result of Ictiqaad, Qowl and Camal, • Kufr (major) and Eeman are mutually exclusive: when one disappears, the other takes its place. They cannot co-exist within the same heart. • They believe that if someone utters a statement of Kufr (say insults the prophet) or falls into an action of Kufr (say joins the ranks of the Kaafir army) then he is a Kaafir. And he will be judged for his kufr if all the conditions of the Xukm are met and anything that negates the Xukm is not found The Murji’ah: Irja is the misguided ideology of the Murji’ah sect. There are varying degrees of misguided groups within this sect, which are essentially sub groups of the Murji’ah. However, most of their erroneous concepts are founded upon a principle, which seeks to separate actions from Eeman. And from them were those who held that Eeman neither increased nor decreased and that it was a constant entity, which was either present of absent. Many of the contemporary groups have intentionally or unintentionally incorporated some of their views about the relationship of actions with Eeman, which necessitates an effect on the rules of declaring disbelief (Takfīr), based upon actions. Therefore, you will hear statements from them, such as, “A person is not labeled as a disbeliever (Kaafir) due to such and such actions because this action does not indicate what is in his heart,” even if that action was from the most obvious forms of Major Disbelief (Kufr Akbar) such as swearing at Allah or His Messenger, or legislating man-made laws and forcing these laws upon the people in replacement of the laws of Allah, or making fun of the religion or other than that. Sufyan Ath-Thawri said: “The Murjiíah differed from us in three matters: We say that Eemann is sayings and actions and they say that Eeman is sayings without actions. We say that it increases and decreases and they say that it does not increase and that it does not decrease. We say that we are Mu’minun (only with) approval (i.e. by saying Insha-Allah) and they say that we are (guaranteed) Mu’minun in the eyes of Allah.” (Hilyat Al-Awliyaa 7/29) • The original Murji’ah: these where the people in the time of Ali and Uthman leading into the Fitnah between Ali and Mucaawiyah. They left the issue and did not support one against the other and refused to hold any opinion about the matter. And because the term Irja literally means to ‘put off’ they were labeled with this term because they ‘put off’ the issue and did not take a side and refused to hold any opinions about the issue. This type of Irja, however, had nothing to do with the concept of Eeman and Kufr and therefore did not play any role in Takfir. This form of Irja is virtually non-existent. Some of the forms of Murji’ah, with a basis in the concepts of Takfir, include: 1. Murjiatul Fuqahaa: these were the likes of Abu Hanifah and they say that actions are not part of Eeman. They were called Fuqahaa because they were culamaa with this ideology and not common people and this is not to be misunderstood that their mistakes were only a matter of Fiqh. Indeed, these misunderstandings are directly from Aqeedah in the most important area after Tawheed: Eeman and Kufr. The Murjiatul Fuqahaa separated actions from Eeman and said that actions are not Eeman but rather they are evidence for the Eeman in the heart. And this is the only real distinction between them and the Ghulatul Murjiíah. 2. Murjiatul Jahmiyyah: this type of Irja was innovated by Jahm Ibn Safwan and was much more extreme than the Murjiatul Fuqaha. Because he not only said that actions are excluded from Eeman, he also added that Eeman only was Cilm (knowledge). His concept was the most extreme Mathahib of Irja because he considered knowledge to be equal to Eeman. They said that Eeman was only Cilm (knowledge) in the heart. So they separated actions, statements and Ictiqad from Eeman. So even a person who refused to declare the Shahadateyn, committed all kinds of acts of Kufr, and did not claim to have Ictiqad in his heart, could not be made Takfir to as long as the person claimed to have knowledge of Allah. According to this opinion even Iblis would be a Mu’min, since he has knowledge of Allah. Those with this belief are generally considered kuffar. 3. Al-Karaamiyyah: they were named after their founder Ibn Karam. They say that Eeman is upon the tongue only and they separated both the actions of the body and the sayings and actions of the heart from the definition of Eeman. This means that the person remains a Mu’min as long as he declares the Shahadateyn upon his tongue, without any Ictiqad of it and without performing anything of the obligations of Islam. Takfir then can only be made to someone who does not declare the Shahadateyn. 4. Ghulatul Murjiiah: These are the majority of the Murjiah and they are the ones who said that Eeman is Tasdiq/Ictiqad (assent) of the heart alone, and that whatever takes place upon the tongue and upon the body does not even indicate what is in the heart, nor does it have any tie to the heart. And along with the Fikr or the Murjiatul Fuqaha, they have the most influence upon the Aqeedah of the Muslims today. In fact, they only differ from the Murjiatul Fuqaha in that they did not even see outward sayings and actions of Eeman to be evidence for Eeman in the heart. And because of this, they did not see sayings and actions of Kufr to be evidence for Kufr in the heart. So with respect to Takfīr, they are different than the Fuqahaa because they wouldn’t even consider the acts of Kufr to mean anything unless they were accompanied with statements in which the person clearly states that there is Kufr in his heart. And this meant that the person could not leave Islam unless he said clearly that he does not have Tasdiq in his heart. So everything depends upon the intentions. The Difference Between Murji’atul Fuqahaa and Ahlu Sunna wal Jamaaca: • The Salaf say that Eeman is Ictiqaad (belief in the heart) plus Qowl (statements of the tongue) plus camal bil jawaarix (actions of the limbs). Meaning that the actions of the limbs are part of Eeman and not separate • The Murji’ah disagree and say that Eeman is Ictiqaad of the heart plus Qowl but the actions of the limbs are only obligatory (obligatory to worship Allah, obligatory to stay away from maxaarim, etc) but they are not included in Eeman and have nothing to do with it • The Salaf say that Eeman increases and decreases with deeds • The Murji’ah said no – Eeman neither increases nor decreases. • The Salaf say that we will never testify to the completeness of Eeman of a particular person – since all humans are prone to error, no will we deny that he has Eeman despite his shortcomings and sins (except if he falls into a sin that renders him a kaafir) • The Murji’ah say that the Mu’min is always in a complete state of Eeman despite his major sins but only deserves punishment in the hereafter • The Salaf argued for the istithnaa in Eeman ‘ saying I am a mu’min insha-Allah. • The Murji’ah denied it • If someone comes with all the necessary belief of the heart and tongue, but does not willfully complement them with the action of the limbs, while being able to, the Salaf say that that person is a kaafir, for he denied the worship obligated upon him by Allah and his Eeman is null and void. • The Murji’ah say that he is a Muslim but a faasiq Muslim, meaning he can leave the actions since they are not part of Eeman, and in the hereafter it depends on Allah to forgive him or punish him • The Ghulatul Murji’ah or the Modern day Murji’ah are not the same as the early Murjiatul Fuqahaa • The difference between the Salaf and the Murji’atul Fuqahaa was mostly a difference of terminology and not Axkaam but some aspects are the same as Ibn taymiyyah says. • The Murjiatul Fuqahaa agree with the Salaf that good deeds increase your Eeman in the sense that if someone reads more Qur’an than you then his Eeman is more than yours and so on, but they say that the Macrifatul Qalbiyyah – the belief of Eeman in the heart, such as the yaqiin, ikhlas, etc, itself does not increase or decrease – just the outward actions increase and decrease. • The Murjiatul Fuqahaa also believe that kufr comes from Qowl, ictiqad and camal just like the Salaf. • They believe that if someone comes with Qowl and ictiqad and complements them with Camal then he is saved from hellfire altogether and he I s a Mu’min with complete Eeman • If, however he does not complement them with camal then he is deserving punishment in the hereafter but is not eternally doomed to hellfire. The Murji’ah, because of their separation of actions of the limbs from the Eeman, have watered down the religion of Allah and consider actions such as ruling besides what Allah has revealed, prostrating to Satan, throwing the Qur’an in the toilet or helping the Mushrikeen against the Muslims, etc to be actions of only sins rather than their manifest Kufr. This is because they believe all these actions cannot be called Kufr on their own until the situation of the heart is known – i.e until and unless the person believes within his heart the permissibility of these actions in Islam. Then and only then can they declare him a Kaafir. They believe that whatever nullifies one’s Islam is only Kufrul ictiqaadi since it is the heart, and heart alone, that determines whether Kufr has occurred or not! Next: Khawaarij

Xiinow, we have not applied the Xukm to the TFG yet - ha degdegin adeer, lagamana gudbayo arrinkan waa loo fadhiyaaye sug!

Xiin, Akhi fillah, horta Ilaahay labadeenaba Xaqa hayna waafajiyo Insh-Allah. Intaa ka dib, walaal, I have stated that the case you are referring to (4) cannot be applied to the TFG as the ruling is not sound according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. And I have stated ample evidences for this (after the Ayah’s in the Qur’an) with all the scholars from my previous post and if you want more then there are many more scholars who can confirm the same thing Akhi. I have even given you the source to Sheikh Ibn baaz’s, Raximahullah, take on it! What is not clear to you from all the above excerpts? The ruling, whereby one rules besides what Allah has revealed and does not become a kaafir is also explained in my previous post by Sheikh Muxamad Shaakir. The Kufr (whereby the ruler does not leave Islam) is when he rules in one specific instance by not applying the Shari’ah, (overcome by desire or through bribery) whilst fully aware that it is against the Shari’ah and does not rule like that regarding the general matters upon the public. This is Kufr - but this does not take him out of Islam. But if he takes this rule, which is besides what Allah has revealed, upon the general population or legislates it upon them (as they do in the parliaments with their penal codes etc) then this is Kufr which takes him out of the Millah. Do you see the difference? And the TFG falls into the latter, hence its apostasy! It is two different rulings for two different rules...

^^^ The thread starter is going by way of substantial evidences and scholarly sources, not mere opinions! So for your claims here, it is up to you to prove that we are not in the middle of a Jihad in Somalia, and that those lads are acting contrary to the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah, and shed some light on when fighting is prohibited during the Sacred months? Haatuu Burhaanakum in kuntum saadiqeen… Dhagaxow, we will deal with the innocent bystanders once good old Xiin concludes his argument about the permissibility of the whole operation insha-Allah! Bear with us…

Allahu Akbar! May Allah preserve that knight and keep him steadfast!

By the grace of Allah, Dhuusamareeb is now under the control of the Mujahideen. Guriceel and other cities will follow shortly insha-Allah. I also heard from sources in Mogadishu that the pitiful sounds of the AU spokesman were heard on the airwaves this morning. In his ‘Message to Al-Shabaab’ he was pleading with the Mujahideen to not attack him and his forces. Fearing the massive display that took place yesterday, starting from Maslax to Ifka Xalane, the AU forces are now living in fear, and thus the urgent plea of theirs is somewhat understandable, to say the least. In his message also, he gave a warning, intertwined with the plea, that if attacked the ones who will suffer will be not the Shabaab or the AU but the local population. This is because, he said in his justification, of his retaliation of shelling the Shacab! Seems like they did take a pounding that pulverized the cabins of their chest yesterday, with all that Takbeering martyrdom seekers! Perhaps soon you will hear that they have all perished or become insane/psychologically debilitated – not because of Shell shock but, rather more interestingly, Shabaab Shock! Also, the Shabaab and Hizb are to operate under one banner, in unity, as declared by the leaders of the Shabaab at yesterday’s gathering. What possible implications could this have on the next phase of events I wonder? This, certainly, is an interesting turn of events… p.s for those who cannot raise their heads beyond the gutter to see the reality of events on the ground, stop sniffing under the ground and dwelling inside the cesspits of ignorance and live up to the realities of Somalia. Somalia is not what is was yesterday and would not, undoubtedly, be tomorrow what it is today! This paradigm shift is in full swing, so it wouldn’t make sense to simply deny the existence or progress of the Islamic movements as well as their full domination of the Southern regions. Acknowledge the facts and employ sound reason. What do the current developments in the central regions and this unity of the Mujahideen mean for the TFG?

Xiin, I don’t believe you have researched into the matter in detail for you to be coming up with the above excerpt from the Sheikh. This is the same which has been used by the likes of Khalid Anbari and Cali Xalabi, whose books were both banned by the Lajnah Daa’imah. They made Anbari’s book (Xukm bighayri ma Anzala-llah wa Usul At-takfir) even Haram to publish, distribute or sell. All the evidence is available but I don’t think it would be of much use to you. You have used the fatwa of Sh. Ibn Baaz (the same which Khalid Anbari used in his book by the way to illustrate the same Xukm you are trying to illustrate here) that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is Kufr of the lesser category – meaning it is not Kufr that takes one out of the fold of Islam. The condition is Istixlaal right? Well let’s look at the other words of the Sheikh, May Allah have mercy on him: Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Raximahullah, said: • ‘There is no Eeman for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Xukm of Allah and His messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allah are more encompassing and more just.’ Refer to ‘Risaalat Wujuub Taxkim Sharca-llah wa nabth ma Khaalafah’ p. 39 I guess this is self-explanatory and needs no much interpretation. Or maybe you did not come across this during your search? But this is only one Sheikh, why don’t we have a look at what some of the scholars have said about the issue to save us the trouble of dispute altogether. Let’s examine the plethora of clear statements that explain the ruling besides what Allah has revealed and which you have somehow overlooked or failed to spot: 1. Sheikh Albani: When Mustafa Ataturk changed the Hanafi code Shariah of his country to man-made laws, this is what Sh. Albani said about him: ‘I made clear to him (i.e his opponent whom he had a debate with about the Takfir of Attaturk) that the Muslims did not make Takfir on Ataturk who was a Muslim. No (they did so) when he freed himself from Islam when he implemented upon the Muslims an institution other than the institution of Islam. And from that was the example of his equalizing the inheritance of the male and the female.’ Fatawa Ash-Shaykh Al-Albani Wa maqara’natihah bi fatawa Al-ulamaa, p 263 and cassette #171 2. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn taymiyyah: ‘And it is known by necessity in the Deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims that whoever permits the following of a Shari’ah other than Shari’ah of Muhammad, then he is a Kaafir and it is like the Kufr of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book. ‘Al Fatawa’ Vol 28/524 3. Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir ‘So whoever leaves the clear Shari’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdillah, the Seal of the prophets, and takes the Xukm to other than it from the laws of the Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Xukm to the Yasiq and puts it before it? Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijma (i.e consensus) of the Muslims.’ ‘Albidayah wan-Nihayah’ Vol 13/119 4. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalix Al Cuthaymeen: ‘…the first type ios when the Xukm of Allah is removed and replaced with another Taghuti xukm, so that the Xukm of the Shari’ah is eliminated between the people and he puts in its place another Xukm from the fabrication of humans and they remove the laws of the Shari’ah concerning the Mucaamalaat (general actions between people) and they put in its place fabricated laws and this, without doubt, is Istibdal (i.e replacement) of the Shri’ah of Allah with other than it. And this is Kufr which removes one from the Millah because this person put himself at the level of the creator because he legislated for the slaves of Allah that which Allah did not give permission for and that is Shirk in His (Allah tacaala) saying: Am lahum Shurakaa’u sharacuu lahum…Ash-Shura 21) ‘Fiqh Al-Cibaadaat’ #60 5. Shaykh Mahamuud Shakir: ‘…So this action is turning away from the Xukm of Allah and His deen and putting the laws of the kuffar above the law of Allah, Subxanahu wa tacaala. And this is Kufr. No one from the people of the Qibla, with their differences, doubts the Kufr of the one who says or calls to this.’ From his commentary on Tafsir At-tabari (Tafsir at-Tabari’ vol 10/348) 6. Umar Al-Ashghar: ‘And from this explanation it becomes clear to us that there are two types of people who have fallen into Kufr about which there is no doubt. The first, the one who legislates that which Allah did not reveal, and those are the ones who fabricate the laws that oppose the legislation of Allah – they implement it upon the people and the Ijma (consensus) is upon their Kufr without doubt’ ‘Ash-Shari’ah Al Ilaahiyyah’ P 179 7. Al-Allamah Muhammad Al-Amin Ash-Shanqiti: ‘And with these heavenly texts we have mentioned, it becomes quiet clear that the ones who follow fabricated laws, which they Shaytan has legislated upon the tongues of his Awliya and which oppose that which Allah has legislated upon the tongues of His messengers, peace be upon them, that no one doubts their Kufr and their Shirk except him whom Allah has removed his sight and has blinded them to the light of the revelation as they are’ ’Adhwa Al-Bayan’ Vol 4/82-85 8. Imaam Axmad Shaakir: ‘The matter in these fabricated laws is clear like the clearness of the sun. It is clear Kufr and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes themselves to Islam, whoever they may be, to acto according to it or to submit to it or to approve of it. So each person should beware and every person is responsible for himself. So the ulama should make the truth clear and tell what they have been ordered to tell without concealing anything’ ‘Umdat at-tafsir Mukhtasar tafsir Ibn Kathir of Ahmad Shakir’ Vol 4/173 – 174 9. Al-Allaamah Muhammad ibn Ibraahim Aal-Ash-Shaykh: ‘So just like in the courts of Shariah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger like that, these courts have references, which laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws from the mathaahib of some of the innovators who claim to be under Shariah. And these courts are niow fully operational in the settlements of Islam people entering them one after another, their rulers judge upon them with what opposes the Sunnah and the Book with the rules of the law and they impose that on them and approve it for them. So what Kufr is beyond this Kufr and what nullification of Shahaada of Muhammadu-r-rasuulullaah is beyond this nullification!’ ‘Taxkim al-Qawaanin’ 10. Imam Ash-shawkani: ‘And there is no doubt that this is Kufr in Allah, Subxanahu wa tacaala, and his Shariah, which He ordered with upon the tongue of His Messenger and chose for His slaves in His Book and upon the tongue of His messenger. They even disbelieved in all of the laws from the time of Adam (calayhi salaam) until now and Jihad against them and fighting them is Waajib until they accept the laws of Islam and submit to them and rule with the pure Shari’ah and they leave what they were upon of Tawaghit Shaytaniyyah’ ‘Ad-dacwah Al-caajil fi Dafcil caduwu Saa’il’ which came within ‘Ar-rasaa’il As-Salafiyyah’ P 67 – 69 11. Imam Abdullah Ibn Humayd: ‘And whoever makes a general legislation (At-Tashriic Al-caam) and implements it upon the people which opposes the Xukm of Allah, then this one leaves the Millah as a kaafir.’ ‘Ahmiyyat Al-Jihad’ P 196 12. Shaykh Muhammad Hamid Al-Fiqqi: ‘…so he is without a doubt a Murtad if he continues upon that and does not return to the ruling with what Allah revealed and he will not be benefited by any name which he labels himself with and neither by any outward action that he does from the outward actions from Slat or Siyaam or anything else.’ From the commentary of ‘Fathul Majid’ P406 …I can give you more proofs from many more scholars, but if a person is interested in finding out the truth and adhering to the Quran and Sunnaha and the Salft, then these should be adequate. The reason you are arguing for the fact that ruling besides what Allah has revealed to be only a minor Kufr is because you have not understood the fundamental concept within the ruling – the concept of ruling without the laws of Allah in private and an instance yet fully being aware that what one is doing is prohibited verses the applying of this rule to the general masses. The two are different and on opposite poles. And this is where you are having trouble comprehending. And if you have researched using Ibn Abbas’s concept of Kufr Duna Kufr, then know that it is the instance which is in question and not the general application of the rule. The concept of Kufr Duna Kufr of Ibn Abbas has been discussed and dissected at length by many scholars and requires no much attention, but if you are still not satisfied with their proofs, it is upon you to bring your! Shaykh Muhammad Shakir Ash-Sharif explains the matter to you in his ‘Chapter concerning making clear when the one who rules by othern than what Allah revealed is a Kaafir; with the Kufr that does not take one outside the Millah,’ The Shaykh says: ‘He does not disbelieve with three conditions: • That he is Multazim (i.e religiously committed) and accepts upon the outside and the inside every Xukm or Tashriic which has come from Allah or His messenger • That he accepts and confesses that he has left the Xukm with what Allah has revealed in that matter or that specific instance that he judges in that he is sinful and that his Xukm is a mistake and that the Xukm of Allah is correct. • That the opposing Xukm is a Xukm in specific instances and not in full general matters and this third condition is the one which many of the contemporary people have not understood and paid attention to.’ Read ‘Inna-llaaha huwal Xaakim’ P 88 – 91 Point of note: we cannot state that any particular ruler to be a Kaafir because of his ruling by other than what Allah has revealed before all the conditions of the Xukm of Takfir are present and all the preventative factors of the Xukm are eliminated. Wa_Salaam

Good to see that you are using concrete evidences. This is good and means that our views in the matter are set aside as we illustrate the opinions and what the scholars say about the issue. One thing though. Source yaa Xiin, Sources!!! Where can I find the writings of the two scholars that you cited??? All the evidences you mentioned, except for the two scholars, are indicating that killing oneself is haraam – that is killing oneself to escape some harm in this world. In Islam suicide committed to elevate pain or adversities or misery and so forth is forbidden. The hadith you cited illustrates this. On the authority of Jundub Ibn Abdullah that the prophet narrated a story of a man with a wound, and he was in anguish, so he took a knife and cut his hands, and the blood did not stop until he died. Allah said: “my servant has hastened the ending of his life, so I have prohibited paradise from him” (Bukhari 3463, Muslim 116) And there is no difference among the scholars that the person who commits suicide for the above mentioned reasons has fallen into a major sin, which makes him deserving punishment of the hereafter. As for the verse that prohibits Killing oneself, Imam al-Qurtubi explains that this ‘implies a prohibition for a person to kill himself due to any worldly desire… it also implies the meaning of ‘do not kill yourselves due to misery or fury.’ (Tafsir al Qurtubi 5/156) And while death to end one’s grief over his life or for any other worldy purpose is forbidden, seeking death in the path of Allah is encouraged. It is also clear that immersing oneself in a place where one’s death is guaranteed is forbidden, but when in Jihad and it is for benefiting the Deen and raising the Word of Allah, not only is it legal but it is much beloved (Mandub) as in the Hadith of Abu Hurairah that the best among the people of this Ummah is the one who flies on his horse whenever he hears the call for battle, seeking death and being slain with eagerness. (sahih Muslim 1889). And there are many other ahadith to prove that it is even liked by Allah. As for the two types of acts that you illustrate, both of them are intentional. In both situations, the Mujahid knows that his death is certain. A lone warrior charging into the enemy ranks would do so to attain Shahaada – he knew with certainty that his death is a few steps away from him and so he would charge forward chanting the Takbeer. Let us shed some light on this: You see in the early days, the manner of martyrdom operations were that a Mujaahid immerses himself in the ranks, say a thousand or so, of the Kuffar with certainty that he will be killed. He is sure of his death as he plunges forth but the action he is performing is beneficial to the Muslims, so it is permissible. This is the consensus of the Four Imaams, says Ibn Taymiyyah (Fatawa Al Kubra 4/352) On the day of Yarmuk, as Ibn Casaakir and Ibn kathir narrate, a man came to Abu Uubayda ibn Jarrah and said to him ‘I’ve decided upon myself to exert the utmost effort against them (until they kill me), so do you wish for me to relay something to your prophet? Abu ubaydah replied: ‘give him my greetings of peace and inform him that we have indeed found true what our Lord has promised us’ so the man went forth and immersed himself into the ranks of the Kuffar and fought until he was martyred. He was the first to be martyred in the battle. (tarikh Ad-Dimishq 76/101 by ibn Asakir and bidaya wan-Nihaya 7/11 by Ibn Kathir) On the day of Yarmuk also, as narrated by the great Mufassir Ibn Jarir At-Tabari in his Tarikh (2/338) is the famous story of Ikrama ibn Abu Jahl who came to the commander (Khalid Ibn Waleed) and said to him that he is going to attain Shahada by immersing himself into the heart of the enemy. He called for anyone who would give him a Baycah for death. Harith Ibn Hisham and Dhiraar along with four hundred knights, Khalid tried to talk him out of it by reminding him that they need him more but Ikrama was adamant and said that it would be a payback for the past sins and for fighting the religion of Allah in his days of ignorance. He took the followers ready for martyrdom and rushed forth to the enemy until they were all martyred. On the day of Yamamah, Salim, the freed-slave of Abu Xudayfa, dug himself a trench and stood in it (in order to prevent him form leaving) carrying the flag of the Muhajireen and fought until he was martyred. On the day of Uxud, Abu Dujana made himself into a human shield protecting the Prophet from the arrows. This incident is used to prove that it is permissible to sacrifice oneself to protect the valuable commander of the army, so what about the entire religion? Similar incident is that of Abu Talha when he stood in front of the prophet and stretched forth his chest to block the arrows saying ‘May Allah make me a sacrifice for you’ (Sahih al-Mawaarid, authenticated by Sh. Albani, and also in Bukhari, Muslim). When mentioning this issue in his Sahih, Ibn Hibban writes: ‘mentioning the permissibility for a man to sacrifice himself for his Imam’ and then mentioned the incident of Abu Talha. Al Bayhaqi narrated in his As-Sunanul Kubra (9/100) that one of the Ansar was late when the massacre of his companions took place at the well of Ma’unah. By the time he’d arrived, vultures were already devouring the flesh of his companions. He told Amr bin Ummayyah: ‘I am going to go forward into this enemy, so they can kill me. I don’t want to be left behind when our companions have been killed.’ He did as he said and was killed by the enemy. When Amr (the only survivor) went back to the prophet and narrated the story, the prophet said some good words about that man and then asked Amr, ‘and why didn’t you go ahead with him’? The goal of this man was neither to harm the enemy nor to defend himself or his companions, rather it was to attain Shahaada. Also from narrated by Al Bayhaqi in the afore mentioned book and Abdullah ibn Mubarak in his Kitaba al-jihad, that on the day of Yamamah when the Banu Haneefa had fortified the garden of Musaylama and there was no way for the Muslims to enter the garden, Bara Inb Malik ordered his companions to put him in the catapult and throw him over. They did as he told them and threw him over. Inside the fort were more than 20,000 troops. When fighting a large Roman army, a man from among the Muslims left the ranks of the Muslims and charged on his own until he plunged himself into the ranks of the kuffar and was in their midst. The Muslims shouted ‘he has thrown himself into destruction’ and cited the verse. Abu Ayyub Al-Ansari heard them and reprimanded them, saying that ‘you give this (wrong) interpretation to this verse but it was revealed concerning us, the Ansar.’ He explained to them that the verse was for those who chose to stay with their wealth instead of going for Jihad (Abu da’wud and Tirmidhi, authenticated by Sh. Albani) All these examples and countless others show that immersing oneself into the ranks of the Kuffar to attain Shahada is not only permissible but, rather, praiseworthy. This I believe we are in agreement on as your earlier posts tends to suggest. But you should note that the Mujahid in this type of situation is directly involved in the process – he is seeking death and he knows 100%, contrary to your doubt, that he will be killed. The above examples illustrate this point very clearly, so there are no uncertainties, as you claim. Today’s Marytrdom Operations: As for the current martyrdom operations where one packs himself with explosives and blows himself up taking scores of Jews and Christians with him, then this is what the Scholars had to say about it: Sh Albani was asked a question: ‘regarding modern-day militant operations, where suicidal brigades wear explosives and go to the tanks of the enemy repressing the Muslims (Jewish in this case), and then he gets killed. What is the ruling regarding this, is this considered suicide or something else?’ The Sheikh answered: This is not suicide. Because suicide, is when a person kills himself to escape a hard life which he is going through. But as for this thing which you are talking about, this is not suicide. Rather, this is Jihad in the path of Allah. But there is a note which should be considered – this type of action should not be carried out individually, or alone (based on one’s own decisions). Rather it should only be carried out according to the command of the leader of the Jaysh. The Sheikh continues explaining and after a while the Questioner interrupts: ‘So there is no problem in doing such? The Sheikh responded: ‘No there is no problem in doing such. We (the scholars) do not label this as suicide. And suicide is one of the worst sins Allah has prohibited… As for this (Mujahid), then he goes forth, as many of the Salafu Saalix, and from amongst the companions and those after them – used to go forth, plunging into the kuffar enemy attacking them with his sword, and used the sword against them, until they were killed. But if it is done haphazardly and on one’s own decision, the this goes under the warning of self-destruction. But if it is done upon the command of the leader of the army, the one who knows the realities of the battlefield, and its necessities, and its benefits, etc – then this is something permissible. No rather it is something virtuous. Refer to the series of tapes of the Sheikh – Silsila Al Huda wan-Nuur’ tape no 134. it can also be downloaded from the net. Sheikh Muxammad Ibn Saalix Al-Cuthaymeen was asked: ‘O noble Sheikh! You, may Allah preserve you, have heard about what events took place on Wednesday… when more than twenty Jews were killed at the hands of one of the Mujahideen, and more than fifty Jews were injured. And this was done by the Mujahid after strapping explosives on himself, and then he entered into one of the celebrations of the Jews, and exploded it… so is this action considered suicide, or is it Jihad?’ The Sheikh answered: ‘This young man who wore these things…who is the first one he kills? He kills himself… so there is no doubt that he is the one who caused his own death. So this is not permissible in such a situation, except if there is a great benefit (Maslaxa) for Islam. (it is not permissible) to merely kill a handful of individuals or to merely injure the leaders or commanders of the jews. But if there is a great benefit, and a big interest in it for Islam, then verily, it is permissible. And Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah has proved this and gave an example using the young boy (from the people of the Ditch) What is apparent from the Sheikh’s (Ibn Taymiyya) opinion, is that he views these types of operations are in need of being examined with deep understanding of, and pondering about, and looking into the outcomes and fruits of these operartions, by choosing the heavier of the benefits and deterring the more harmful things. So the Sheikh (Ibn Taymiyyah) has attached the ruling of such operations on the outcomes of them. And that if there is a great benefit for the Muslims and raising the banner of Tawhid, then it is permissible… and it is obvious that it is upto the experts of the Jihad – and that is none other than the commanders of the Mujahideen – to look into these matter. Refer to the series of tapes ‘Al-liqa Ash-Shahri’, tape No 20. This can also be downloaded from the Sheikh’s website. Al Imaam, AL-Xaafidh, Ash-Sheikh Sulayman Al-Ulwaan was asked: ‘You know what is happening to the Palestinians at this time from the crimes of the Jews and the humiliating Arab silence. So is there, in the self-sacrificial operations against the Jews, any position from the Shari’ah?’ After talking briefly about the Jews, the Sheikh answered: …When the enemies of Allah place their swords upon the throats of Muslims and terrorize their children and elderly, and overtake their states and violate their chastity - then it is obligatory from among all the people iof ability to fight them and spill their blood and make an ongoing Jihad against them until the full liberation of Palestine and all the countries of the Muslims. And it is not allowed in the Shari’ah to surrender any of the lands of the Muslims and to make peace with them… And I see in this time, in which the Muslims are unable to (fully) fight the Jews and destroy them and expel them from the Holy land, the best treatment and the greatest medicine that we apply to the brother of monkeys and pigs (i.e. Jews) is that we perform these martyrdom operations, and put forward our souls as a sacrifice for the motivation of Eeman, and for praiseworthy goals, such as planting terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve and inflicting damage upon their bodies and losses in their wealth. And the evidences permitting the martyrdom operations are many and I have mentioned elsewhere around ten evidences, and I’ve listed their fruits abd the benefits of performing them. The Sheikh, then illustrates the example of the young boy from the people of the Ditch and says: ‘And the goal of these two actions (of the young boy, and the martyrdom operations) is making the truth victorious and supporting it, and inflicting harm upon the Jews and Christians and the Mushrikeen and their allies, and weakening their strength and striking terror into their souls’ Read “verdict regarding the permissibility of Martyrdom operations’ by the Sheikh. Also read the fatwa of Sheikh Abdullah ibn Xumayd in Majallah Filistiin, #5, pages24-25. Wa-Salaam!

You initiate what you call a 'theologically inclined duel' and you start from the conclusion - with the accusation. First give us the proof, then put the label. not the other way round Sheekhow. After detailing the statements of the scholars and the evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, you can reach a conclusion that based on the above evidence the Islamists are Takfiris. Sidey doontaba, soo afuuf!