January 6, 2010 U.N. Food Agency Suspends Aid to Southern Somalia By ALAN COWELL LONDON — The United Nations World Food Program said Tuesday it was suspending aid deliveries to a million people in southern Somalia because of “rising threats and attacks on humanitarian operations, as well as the imposition of a string of unacceptable demands from armed groups.” In a statement on its Web site, the organization said perilous conditions for its staff had made it “virtually impossible” to reach people in need in the region, including many women and children. Somalia has been without an effective central government for almost two decades, caught in a swirl of bloody contests between armed groups. A radical Islamist group called the Shabab and allied insurgent groups control most of the country, while the writ of the weak transitional government is limited to a small enclave in Mogadishu, the capital, under the protection of African Union peacekeeping troops. The Obama administration says the Shabab has links to Al Qaeda. According to The Associated Press, the World Food Program said many of the areas affected by the suspension of food aid were controlled by Shabab militants. Emilia Casella, a spokeswoman for the World Food Program, said armed groups had demanded that the food agency remove women from all posts and pay protection to guarantee the safety of aid workers. In its statement, the World Food Program said it was “continuing to provide life-saving food distribution in the rest of the country, including the capital, Mogadishu, reaching more than two-thirds of the hungry it has been targeting — or 1.8 million people.” The food agency said that in the past five years, Somalia had produced only 30 percent of its food requirements.

For now, this Ḥadīth is sufficient for us because it is a definitive proof that a Muslim fighting his brother Muslim is a form of disbelief with the meaning of disbelief of action and not the disbelief in one’s creed and belief. Now, we return to the sect of Takfīr, or to those who branched off from them, and their accusation that the rulers are complete disbelievers as are those who live under their custody and leadership and those appointed by them (to various positions) – all guilty of disbelief and apostasy!

January 5, 2010 British Prime Minister ‘Appalled’ by Protest Plan By JOHN F. BURNS LONDON — A radical Islamic group planning a protest march through the streets of a town that has achieved iconic status in Britain for honoring the passing hearses of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan ran into a stiff rebuff from the British government on Monday. Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a statement saying he was “personally appalled” by the group’s plan to march through the streets of Wootton Bassett, 70 miles west of London, where townspeople have lined the sidewalks since April 2007 to mourn the passing cortèges of British military casualties flown home to the nearby military airbase at Lyneham. “Wootton Bassett has a special significance for us all at this time, as it has been the scene of the repatriation of many members of our armed forces who have tragically fallen,” Mr. Brown said. “Any attempt to use this location to cause further distress and suffering to those who have lost loved ones would be abhorrent and offensive.” Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who is responsible for the police, said in a separate statement that he would support any request from the police or local government officials to ban the march. “I find it particularly offensive that the town, which has acted in such a moving and dignified way in paying tribute to our troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country should be targeted in this manner,” he said. Plans for staging the march were laid out in an open letter to the families of the 246 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001 that was posted by Anjem Choudary, leader of a group called Islam4UK, on the group's Web site. The organization describes itself as a “platform” for promoting the views of an extremist Islamic group, Al Muhajiroun, which praised the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States as heroes, but disbanded in 2005 in response to a British government order banning it. A statement on the organization’s Web site said the march would be held “not in memory of the occupying and merciless British military, but rather the real war dead who have been shunned by the Western media and general public as they were and continue to be horrifically murdered in the name of democracy and freedom, the innocent Muslim men, women and children.” Mr. Choudary, a 42-year-old lawyer and the British-born son of a Pakistani immigrant, did not say when the march would take place, but in his letter to the families of the dead soldiers, he spelled out his reasons for proposing it. “It is worth reminding those who are still not blinded by the media propaganda that Afghanistan is not a British town near Wootton Bassett but rather Muslim land which no one has the right to occupy, with a Muslim population who do not deserve their innocent men, women and children to be killed for political mileage and for the greedy interests of the oppressive U.S. and U.K. regimes,” he said. The townspeople’s practice of honoring the hearses on their journey to a mortuary in the nearby city of Oxford began spontaneously, with two British veterans stood in silent vigil at the roadside as a cortège carrying dead soldiers passed. But it developed rapidly into a local, and quickly a national, institution. Week after week, television newscasts have broadcast images of hundreds of townspeople, and mourners from across the country, lining the main street, now renamed the Highway for Heroes, honoring every dead soldier, or group of soldiers, passing through the town. The images have galvanized support across the country — crowds standing with their heads bowed, some throwing flowers atop the hearses, family members of the fallen weeping as the hearses pass. With a majority of people in Britain saying in opinion polls that they would favor an early military withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ritualized mourning has provided an occasion on which opponents and supporters of the war can find a fitful reconciliation. In Wootton Bassett, reaction to the proposed march was vehement. “We don’t do what we do at Wootton Bassett for any political reason at all,” said Chris Wannell, a former mayor of the town. “We are a Christian country and traditional English market town who honor very much our queen and country. We obey the law and pay respects to our servicemen who protect our freedom. If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett.” Three Facebook groups opposing the march have drawn more than half a million supporters. One anonymous contributor made his point bluntly. “I want my England back,” he said.

war weelku yaraa ninhayow Ilaahay weel weyn baa lagu baryaa

On Qardaawi, read closely yaa Abu Fargas, will ye? At the press conference held by the organizations sponsoring Qaradawi's visit to London, Qaradawi reiterated his view that Suicide attacks are a justified from of resistance to Israeli occupation. In the past, Qaradawi has justified those actions on the basis that all Israel civilians are potential soldiers since Israel is a "militarized society." However, he is opposed to attacks outside of the Palestinian territories and on other than Israeli targets. For example, on March 20, 2005, Qaradawi issued a condemnation of a car-bombing that had occurred in Doha, Qatar the day before. One Briton, Jon Adams was killed. Qaradawi issued a statement[39] that said "Such crimes are committed by insane persons who have no religious affiliation and play well into the hands of the enemies." and "I urge all Qataris to stand united in facing such an epidemic and uproot it to nip the infection in the bud, otherwise it will spread like wildfire. I, in the name of all scholars in Qatar, denounce such a horrendous crime and pray that it would be the last and implore God to protect this secure country.". I already posted Imam al-Albaani's position on jihad generally prohibiting it in the context of leaderless ummah. You see you and LX want to defend certain set of views you hold dear. The Sunni scholars, the ones the world knows and respects have almost reached consensus on this act. Even Qardawi's ijtihiaad is narrow in scope permitting it in some instance and prohibiting it in others like the Qatari incident and the 9/11 attack. More importantly you need to uderstand the reasoning behind the prohibition, the difference between iqtiham of a lone soldier, and a soucide bobmber who sets off explosives without knowing whether his targets will be killed or how many innocent lives will be lost. the only sure thing is his death. So no ya Abu Fargas, there is no credible fatwas permitting the prevalent suicide bombing that today's takfeeri organizations employ and adopt as a convential milatery tactic.

Alshabaab toodu waa la jiifiyyaana bannaan

^^Maadeey alshabaab Dhuusomarreeb ma ka carareen, awoowe? wa yawma xunaynin ith acjabatkum kathratukum baa ku dhacday baa la yiri

^^Allaha ku nabad geeyyo bro. Mar haddaad meesha tagto, xogta dhabta ah waan helaynaa inshaa Allah

^^Keligii Muslims have no Muslim scholars to cite for their murderous acts. As Sheikh Uthayman says they are angry lot who would do anything to avenge regardless of whether it’s permissible or not. That is what that really is. If you find this thread boring, why don’t you come to the other thread and defend the Keligii Muslim madness of calling other practicing Muslims murtadiin.

Garowe: Mudanayaal ka socda baarlamaanka KMG ah iyo Madaxda dawladda Puntland oo ku kulmaya Garowe. 4. januar 2010 Garowe(AllPuntland)- Mudanayaal ka tirsan baarlamaanka KMG ah ee Soomaaliya iyo Madaxda dawladda KMG ah ee Soomaaliya ayaa ku kulmaya caasumada Puntland ee Garowe, iyagoo ka wada hadlaya xaaladaha Siyaasadeed ee dalka Soomaaliya,gaar ahaana khilaafaadyadii dawladda KMG ah iyo dawladda Puntland ee Soomaaliya. Xildhibaanadan ayaa shalay ka soo dagay magaalada Gaalkacyo ee gobalka Mudug, waxaana ujeedkooda lugu sheegay in ay la kulmaan Madaxweynaha dawladda Puntland Dr, C/rixmaan Sheekh Maxamed oo ay kala hadlayaan xaaladaha dalka iyo in ay dhexdhaxaadin ka dhex sameeyaan Puntland iyo dawladda KMG ah. Madaxweynayaasha dawladda KMG ah iyo Puntland ayaa isku khilaafay wada hadal ay ku qaateen dalka Kenya, sannadkii hore ee 2009-kii markii ay dhinacyadu isku diideen qeybo ka mid ah heshiis horay loo gaaray. Dawladda KMG ah ayaa maalmo ka hor sheegtay in ay la heshiin doonaan Puntland, iyadoo ay jireen Siyaasiin ka soo jeeda Puntland oo uu Madaxweynaha KMG ah uxilsaaray xalinta arrimahan, iyadoo ay soo baxayaan tafaasiilaad kala duwan. Lama garan karo sida uu Madaxweynaha Puntland ku aqbali karo wada hadal waqtigan uu la yeesho dawladda KMG ah ee Soomaaliya, inkastoo ay wararka qaarkood sheegayaan in uu jiro khilaafaadyada qaarkood oo laga gudbay.

A Disbelief Less Than Disbelief: excerpts of Al-albaani exposition Now we return to this verse: And whosoever does not judge with what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers. [sūrah al-Māi’dah, 5:44] So what is the intent of the word “disbelief” here? Does it take one outside of the Muslim nation or does it mean something else? I say that it is necessary to be very precise in understanding this verse. The verse could mean the disbelief of action which is to leave off some of the actions from the rulings of Islam. In addition, what helps us in this understanding is the famous scholar of the nation and the interpreter of the Quran, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās. He was one of those companions that all Muslims are in agreement – except those who are from the deviant sects – that he is an unparalleled leader in Tafsīr, the understanding of the Quran. It is as if he heard in those days the likes of what we hear today exactly – that there are people who will understand the verse on its apparent meaning without its explanation. Ibn ‘Abbās said, “It is not the disbelief which you understand it to mean. Indeed it is not the disbelief which takes you outside the fold of the nation; it is a form of disbelief less than (the absolute) disbelief.” Perhaps he was referring to the Khawārij who rebelled against the Leader of the Believers, ‘Alī , and as a result of that they spilled the blood of the believers and did to them what was not done even by the idol-worshippers. Ibn ‘Abbās said, “The matter is not like what they have said or what they presume, but indeed it is a form of disbelief less than disbelief.” This is a clear, precise answer from the explainer of the Quran. This is the explanation of the verse other than which it is not possible to have any other understanding (i.e. a form of disbelief less than the absolute disbelief) from the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah. This is what we indicated towards previously in the beginning of this speech. Indeed the word “disbelief” which is mentioned in many texts of the Quran and Ḥadīth is not possible to explain concerning all these texts that the meaning is equal to leaving the religion. Like this is the example of the well-known Ḥadīth which is in the two authentic books of Ḥadīth (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim) on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd who said that the messenger of said: “Cursing a Muslim is sinful and fighting him is disbelief.” So the disbelief mentioned here is sinning and disobedience and the messenger who is regarded as the most eloquent in expression was intense in condemning this sin, saying, “…and killing him is disbelief.” From another angle we can question: Is it possible for us to understand the word “sin” from the first section of this hadīth, “Cursing a Muslim is sinful,” in the same way we understand the word “sin” that is mentioned in the aforementioned verse with the third wording: And whosoever does not judge with what Allah has revealed, they are the sinners. [sūrah al-Māi’dah, 5:47] The answer is that it could mean that the word “sin” also corresponds in its meaning to the word “disbelief” which means to leave the religion. It could also be that the word “sin” corresponds in meaning to the word “disbelief” which does not mean to leave the religion, but rather means just what the interpreter of the Quran (Ibn ‘Abbās) said, “It is a form of “disbelief” less than “disbelief”. This hadīth emphasizes that the “disbelief” here could be with this meaning (that it is not the total disbelief causing a person to leave the religion) because Allah said: And if two parties among the believers fall into fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight against the one that rebels until it complies with the command of Allah. [al-Ḥujurāt, 49:9] Here, our Lord has mentioned the rebel sect which fights the truthful believing sect and along with this Allah did not judge upon the rebel sect that they were disbelievers, even though the Ḥadīth says: “…and fighting him is disbelief.” Therefore fighting him is a type of disbelief less than the absolute disbelief exactly like Ibn Abbās said in the explanation of the previous verse. A Muslim fighting a Muslim is oppression and aggression against him and evil and disbelief, but this meaning of disbelief could be the disbelief of action or perhaps the disbelief in one’s belief. From here comes the precise detailed exposition that was explained in the commentary by the Imam of truth, the famous scholar of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allah have mercy on him – and then after him, his devoted student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah who took on this responsibility. They were blessed in making aware and explaining the division of disbelief into these two divisions, whose banner was raised by the interpreter of the Quran (Ibn ‘Abbās) with his concise and complete words. Ibn Taymiyyah and his student and companion Ibn al-Qayyim always repeatedly mentioned the necessity of distinguishing between the disbelief of action and disbelief in belief. Otherwise a Muslim would unknowingly fall into the evil of rebelling against the community of Muslims, into that which befell the Khawārij of old and some of their adherents of today. The summary of this point is that his (the prophet’s) saying, “…and fighting him is disbelief,” does not mean he has absolutely left the entire religion. There are many Ḥadīth regarding this point. All these Ḥadīth are irrefutable evidences against those who adhere only to their own deficient understanding of the previous verses and cling to the explanation that this is a disbelief in one’s belief. For now, this Ḥadīth is sufficient for us because it is a definitive proof that a Muslim fighting his brother Muslim is a form of disbelief with the meaning of disbelief of action and not the disbelief in one’s creed and belief. Now, we return to the sect of Takfīr, or to those who branched off from them, and their accusation that the rulers are complete disbelievers as are those who live under their custody and leadership and those appointed by them (to various positions) – all guilty of disbelief and apostasy! This is built upon their evil view that these people have perpetrated a sin thereby becoming disbelievers because of it.

Ibn al-‘Uthaymīn on Suicide-Bombings Question: Some people say it is permissible to carry out suicidal acts of Jihād such as they do by rigging a car with explosives and then storming into the middle of an enemy, all the while the perpetrator knows that he too is certain to die. Answer: My opinion of this is that it is nothing but suicide and that such a person will be punished in Hell just as has been authentically reported from the prophet . …I believe that there is no excuse for one who commits this during our time because it is an ill-famed, modern-day form of suicide that’s become widespread among people. So as such, it is incumbent upon every person to ask the people of knowledge regarding such acts so that correct guidance may be distinguished from sin. It is amazing that these people even kill themselves (along with others) when Allāh has clearly forbidden that, saying: And do not kill yourselves. Indeed, Allāh is merciful to you all. [sūrah al-Nisā’, 4:29] And most of these people want nothing more than revenge on their enemies no matter how they achieve it – whether by permissible or forbidden means. They want nothing but to relieve their thirst for revenge. We ask Allāh to give us the correct insight in applying His religion and in doing acts that please Him. He is capable of anything. Source : Taken from a conversation with Shaykh Muḥammad Ibn Ṣāliḥ al-‘Uthaymīn published by Al- Da’wah Magazine (issue no. 1598, 2/28/1418 Hijrah which corresponds to 7/3/1997).

DFKMG ah ee Soomaaliy iyo Puntland oo lagu wado in ay ka heshiiyaan khilaafkii u dhaxeeyay Isniin, January 04, 2010(HOL): Madax ka socota DFKM ah ee somaliya oo shalay galinkii danbe soo gaaray magaalada Galkacyo ayaa maanta kulan la qaadanaya Madax ka tirsan Maamulka Puntland si la isaga afgarto khilaafka u dhaxeeya DFKMG ah iyo Puntland. Wafdigan soo gaaray Galkacyo ayaa isugu jiro xildhibaano iyo Qaar ka mid ah Golaha Wasiirada Dawlada ,waxaana u jeedka ugu wayn ee ay u yimaadeen ay tahay sidii xal looga gaari lahaa dagaalkii ka dhex dhacay Puntland iyo Gal mudug. Madaxwaynaha Maamulka Puntland DR C/rixmaan Maxamed Faroole ayaa la Filayaa iney xal ka wada gaaraan dhibaatooyin baryihii ugu danbeyay ka jiray gobolka Mudug iyo khilaafka DFKM ah iyo Maamulka Puntland. Wasiirk Macdanta iyo batroolka DFKM ah ee Somaliya General C/Xasan Cawaale Qaybdiid oo hor kacayay wafdigaasi ayaa xusay in ay rajo wayn ka qabaan xalinta xaalada jira,isla mar ahaantaan ay ku guulaysan doonaan. Dawladda KMG ah ayaa maalmo ka hor sheegtay in ay la heshiin doonaan Puntland, iyadoo ay jireen Siyaasiin ka soo jeeda Puntland oo uu Madaxweynaha KMG ah uxilsaaray xalinta arrimahan, iyadoo ay soo baxayaan warar is khilaafsan oo arintaasi ku saabsan . Maamulka Puntland ayaa iminka u Muuqda mid ah aqbali doona Fariinta ay wadaan Wafdigan ka socda DFGKM ah ee Somaliya ,xilli ay jiraan xaalado murugsan oo dalka ka jira Feysal Maxamed Hassan (Boston),Hiiraan Online

^^Abu Fargaas, adeer this is xamlah cilmiyyah. Feel like you wanna debate? well come onboard. Haddii kale, open another thread in Politics section and compile xiin's previous positions, and I will respond

I will come back to comment on the above compilations [insha Allah]. Then we will take up the issue of Allying with non Believers . We will touch whether going through the naturalization process and accepting the allegiance of foreign lands can be basis for takfeer But as you can see above the learned scholars had treaded very carefully on these issues.

Another useful compilation: Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (raheemahullaah) also transmitted that takfeer is not an issue which is disputed, in issues which came up during open sessions with the Shaykh stated this and also in his explanation to al-Qawaa’id al-Muthla wherein he said: You will find from many people today, from those who attach themselves to the religion and to protecting the religion of Allaah, making takfeer of those who neither Allaah made takfeer of or His Messenger. Rather indeed, unfortunately, some people have begun to discuss their rulers and try to impugn them with kufr due to them having merely done something which those people believe is haraam. Yet the matter could be one about which there is a difference of opinion or the ruler could be excused due to his ignorance, as the ruler may sit with good people and may also sit with bad people. All rulers have two sides, either a side which is good or a side which is evil,some ruler for example have good people who do to them and say to them “this is haraam, it is not permissible to do this” yet other will come and say “this is halaal for you to do!” We can put forth an example in the banks, now we do not doubt that the banks today are entrenched in interest which the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) has cursed consuming, receiving, witnessing and signing. It is a must to close down such banks in exchange for halaal transactions. So our deen firstly, and then our economies secondly, can be established. Therefore, being hasty in regards to takfeer of the rulers of the Muslim countries due to these issues is a big mistake. We must be patient as maybe a ruler can be excused! So if the proofs are established upon such a ruler and he says “Yes, this is the Divine Legislation and this interest is indeed haraam, however I see that this ummah will not be rectified at the current time except by interest!” then at this point he would become a disbeliever as he believes that the deen of Allaah in this era is not suitable for the current era. As for a ruler who is confused and there is some doubt in him and thus says “This is halaal” and the Islamic jurists (fuqahaa) have stated this! And Allaah has said this!!” then such a ruler is excused as many of the Muslim rulers today are totally ignorant of the rulings and regulations of the Divine Legislation of Islaam, or at least, most of the Divine Legislation of Islaam. We have put forth these examples in order to make it clear that the issue is dangerous and takfeer is something which has conditions which have to be taken into consideration before anything else. So if a mukaffir (i.e. a person who makes takfeer, in this case out of haste i.e. takfeeree) says “I have a proof from Allaah’s statement, “By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the affairs amongst them…” {an-Nisaa (4): 65} …and that this points to the negation of the origin of eemaan and so from this the ruler by other than what Allaah has revealed, due to his mere ruling by it, becomes a disbeliever who has committed major kufr as eemaan has been negated from him, unless there is an evidence which indicates that the negation here is for the perfection of desired eemaan, such as the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam): “None of you truly believe until I am more beloved to you than his children, father and all the people”, which is a hadeeth that is agreed upon from Anas in the wording of Imaam Muslim. I do not know of any evidence which refers this to being desired perfection (of eemaan).” Those who do not make takfeer, but tasfeeq (i.e. the Salafee) can say, “May Allaah increase you in goodness for this strong foundation, yet I have more proof to show that eemaan here that is negated is desired perfected eemaan, not the actual origin of eemaan itself: 1. The reason for this verse being revealed is mentioned by Shaykhayn from ‘Abdullaah bin Zubayr that a man from the Ansaar argued with az-Zubayr in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) about the Camels of Harrah. In this hadeeth the Ansaaree man was not pleased with the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and was angry saying “Is it because he (i.e. Zubair) is your aunt's son?” Ibn az-Zubayr said: “By Allaah, I think the following verse was revealed concerning this event, “By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the affairs amongst them…” {an-Nisaa (4): 65}5 THIS PROVES: He found that this man, al-Ansaaree al-Badree, had a problem and he did not fully submit to the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), yet he did not make takfeer of him. It is also certain that there was an avoidance of making takfeer of him the man as he was a Badree and the people who fought at Badr are forgiven of their sins as mentioned in the hadeeth of the story of Haatib (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) wherein the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “And what do you know, Allaah might have looked at them (warriors of Badr) and said (to them), “Do what you like, for I have forgiven you.”6 Major kufr is not forgiven, so this indicates that the people of Badr are infallible from being kuffaar, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this.7 Also the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) did not ask them to enter into Islaam again. 2. What has been relayed by Shaykhaan from the hadeeth of Abee Sa’eed al-Khudree who said: ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib whilst in Yemen sent to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) some gold which was divided into four segments. Then a man stood up while it was being divided up and said “O Messenger of Allaah fear Allaah!” The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “Woe to you! Who from the people on earth more deserves to fear Allaah if not me?” Then the man went away. Khaalid ibn Waleed (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) said “O Messenger of Allaah! Shall I not strike his neck (i.e. execute him)?” The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “No! Perhaps he prays.” Khaalid said “How many people pray but say with their tongues what is not in their hearts?” The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “I have not been instructed to open up people’s hearts or to split open (and see) what is inside them.” THIS PROVES: This man objected to the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and was not pleased with it and did not submit to his judgement. The Messenger found that the man had a problem yet did not make takfeer of him and prevented anyone from executing him fearing that the man prayed. Even if he may have fell into an issue of kufr his prayer would not have benefited him at all as major shirk and major kufr nullify actions, and prayer would not benefit. Also this hadeeth indicates that the man did not fall into any issue of kufr according to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and even when Khaalid (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) tried to make the issue one of hidden kufr of the heart, the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) was not happy with this. If the man’s statement was kufr Khaalid would have adhered to it and when the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “I have not been instructed to open up people’s hearts…” as the saying which is branded as one which necessitates takfeer, emerged from him. What also makes it clear that this statement was not kufr is what is verified in the Saheehayn from ‘A’ishah (radi Allaahu ‘anha) that the wives of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) came to him complaining and asking him to be just with regards to the daughter of Abee Qahaafah (i.e. Aboo Bakr, radi Allaahu ‘anhu). This complaining from them was not kufr. 3. What is relayed in the Saheehayn from Anas ibn Maalik (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) that some people from the Ansaar said on the day of Hunayn when Allaah favored His Messenger with the spoils of Hawaazin tribe as Fay’ (booty), he started giving to some Qurayshee men even up to one-hundred camels each, whereupon some Ansaaree men said about Allaah’s Messenger, “May Allaah forgive His Messenger! He is giving to (men of) Quraysh and leaves us, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dripping with blood (of the kuffaar).” In another narration when Makkah was conquered the spoils and booty were distributed among the Quraysh and the Ansaar said “This is strange, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dripping with blood (of the kuffaar).” THIS PROVES: Those rejected what the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) did and had a problem in themselves about the matter, yet the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) did not make takfeer of them on account of it. For this reason, Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Whoever does not adhere to the judgement of Allaah and His Messenger in issues that they dispute over have been divided by Allaah as not believing. As for whoever adheres to the judgement of Allaah and His Messenger internally and externally, yet disobeys and follows his desires then this reaches the status of the likes of disobedience. This verse, “By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the affairs amongst them…” {an-Nisaa (4): 65} Is what the Khawaarij need to utilise to make takfeer of those in authority who do not rule with what Allaah has revealed. Then they claim that their ‘aqeedah is the rule of Allaah. The people have spoken at length about this point mentioned here, what we have mentioned indicates the context of the verse.”8” If the mukaffir (i.e. the takfeeree in this context) says: “There is ijmaa’ (consensus) on the kufr of whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed and make it law. Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer said: “In all of that is opposing the Divine Legislations of Allaah revealed upon his Prophets (alayhim salaam). Whoever leaves the clear revealed Divine Legislation of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullaah, the seal of the Prophets and rules by other than it from abrogated legislations has disbelieved. So how can one rule by Yaasiq and put it forth? Whoever does that has disbelieved by the consensus of the Muslims. The mufassiq (i.e. the Salafee in this context) replies: “Our knowledge of the condition of the Tartars (aka Mongols) and Yaasiq is specific for understanding this relayed consensus and this is as they fell into replacing which at the same time is tahleel (legalising) and tahreem (prohibiting). Ibn Taymiyyah said: “They made the religion of Islaam like the religion of the Jews and Christians and that all of this is the way to Allaah as the same level as the four madhhabs of the Muslims. They are some of them who prefer Judaism, some of them who prefer Christianity and some who prefer Islaam.” Ibn Taymiyyah made clear how they praised Genghis Khaan and compare him to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), and then said: It is known by necessity in Islaam and the agreement of the Muslims that whoever formulates (allows) the following of other than Islaam is a disbeliever and has disbelieved like one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some.” What also indicates that the consensus which is relayed from Ibn Katheer refers to tahleel (legalising) and tahreem (outlawing), what Ibn Katheer said himself was: “Allaah denies whoever departs from the rule of Allaah which comprises all that is good and forbids all that is evil, and resorts to what is not similar to it from opinions, vain desires, terms, ignorance all of which is placed according to their opinions and desires. This is what the Mongols ruled by according to the politics of the monarchs taken from their king Genghis Khaan who put in place the rule of Yaasiq which can be considered as a book which compiles all legislations and borrows from different Divine Legislations from the Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. Al-Yaasiq containsmmregulations from merely his own views and desires and became a followed legislationmthat the Mongols have put in place. So whoever of them does this is a disbeliever who must be killed unless he returns to the rule of Allaah and His Messenger; there is nomsimilarity to it whether small or great.” sources: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, (vol.28, p.523,vol.7, p.490), Uthyamayn, al-Qawaa’id al-Muthla, Ibn Karheer, a-Bidaayah wa-nihaayah, and Nawawi, Al-Minhaaj

^^Apparently you are not reading what you are posting. The fatwas you posted (especially Uthaymayn's) is against eliminating axkaamul shareecah and replacing it with man made law. In Somalia the situation is far from that depiction. There is a security and lack of stability issue in Somalia, and even in that context the tenets of Shariicah Islamiyah are not contradicted. Even where there is relative stability, there is a capacity issue as there is no adequate infrastructure in place. Before I continue with the rest of the points I was trying to discuss, I must note that one needs to understand the difference between citing generic verses from the holly book and the knowledge and understanding required for its just implementation. One also needs to understand the objectives of the shariicah lest his hasty invalidation of others’ faith contradicts the very divine objectives fro which Islam was put in place to safeguard, namely the diin itself. You have shown a peculiar bravery to deny the Islamic identity for a large number of Somalis who publicly affirm their identity by undertaking visible, daily Islamic rituals such prayers, fasting, hajj, and claiming that they are indeed in favor of Islamic laws inline with Islamic jurisprudence as the situation improves. That sort of bravery is a result of little knowledge, ya LX, and you need to be extremely cautious (if you are a man of religion) about these issues.

LX, do you doubt Bin Baaz's position on suicide ‘Abd al-Azīz Ibn Bāz on Suicide-Bombings Question: What is the ruling of someone committing suicide by strapping explosives to himself in order kill a number of Jewish people? Answer: We have already given our opinion of this many times before that such an act is never correct because it’s a form of killing oneself and Allāh says: And do not kill yourselves. [surah al-Nisa 4:29] And the prophet ( “Whoever kills himself by any means, he will be punished by it on the Day of Resurrection.” 2 The person should rather strive and seek to guide them and if fighting is legalized and legislated, then he fights alongside the Muslims. If he’s then killed in this way, then Allāh is praised. But as for killing himself by booby-trapping his body with explosives, thereby killing others and himself, this is wrong and completely impermissible. Rather, he should fight with the Muslims only when fighting is legitimately legislated. As for the actions of (some of) the Palestinians, they are wrong and produce no benefit. Instead, it is compulsory upon them to call to Allāh by teaching, guiding, and advising and not by such actions as these. Source: Taken from the cassette: Fatāwá al-‘Ulamā’ fil-Jihād. You also asked the source of the fatwas I shared with you. Please refer Sharh Riyadh-us-Salihin(1/124) for Shaykh Muhammad Salih bin Uthaymin's fatwa, and Al-Fatawa al-Muhima fi Tabsir-il-Ummah, p.76 for Callaamatil Casrina Shaykh Al-Albani.

^^I know you are resolved to defend certain views of yours, but please at least try to ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not? 4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins. I shall continue to share the views of Muslim scholars o this issue

1- Ruling with Other than What Allah Revealed [Muslim Scholars’ take on the often-cited Quranic verse] The issue of takfeer for ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is one wherein there are different issues. The two Imaams, Bin Baaz and al-Albaanee (raheemahumallaah), viewed that it is minor kufr not major (it does not take one out of the Islamic fold). The newspaper ash-Sharq al-Awsat(no.6156, dated 12/5/1416 AH) published an article wherein the Muftee ‘Abdul’Azeez Bin Baaz stated: I came across a beneficial answer from the noble Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee, may Allaah grant him success, which was printed in the newspapers ash- Sharq al-Awsat and al-Muslimoon wherein the noble Shaykh answered a question that was put to him regarding takfeer due to not ruling by what Allaah has revealed without explanation. He made it clear, may Allaah grant him success, that it is not permissible for anyone to make takfeer of whoever does not rule by other than what Allaah has revealed due to the mere action without knowing if he considered it lawful to do that in his heart. He made use of what is found from Ibn ‘Abbaas (radi Allaahu ‘anhuma), and others from the salaf of the ummah. There is no doubt that what he mentioned in his answer in the tafseer of the verse “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers.” {al-Maa’idah: 44} “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then they are the sinful.” {al-Maa’idah: 47} Is correct, and he, may Allaah grant him success, made it clear that kufr is of two types, major and minor, just as transgression is two, and likewise sin is major or minor. So whoever makes it lawful to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed or makes it lawful to make zinaa or to legalise interest or legalises anything else from the prohibited acts, which are agreed upon as being impermissible, has disbelieved due to major kufr. Whoever does such actions however, without making them lawful, then his kufr is minor kufr and his transgression is minor transgression and likewise is his sin. Bin Baaz opined that whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed does not escape from four issues: 1. The one who says “I rule by this (i.e. man-made laws) because they are better that the Divine Legislation of Islaam (i.e. Sharee’ah)” then such a person is a disbeliever, who has committed major kufr. 2. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws as they are like the Divine Legislation of Islaam, and ruling by it is permitted, just as ruling by the Divine legislation of Islaam is also permitted” such a person is a disbeliever who has committed major kufr. 3. The one who says “I rule by these laws, but the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better,but ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is permitted.” Such a person is ad isbeliever who has committed major kufr. 4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins. **Miskiin xiin's compilation continues...

^^Kullu caam wa antum bikheyr yaa Castro I agree but this, Awoowe, is xamlah cilnmiyyah for the misguided amongst us.

1- Impermissibility of Suicide Bombing [Rulings of Muslim Scholars] Lets first cite number of axaadiith and aayaat that unequivocally prohibits the act of suicide in general. Ahaadiith of Muhammad (scw) Whoever kills himself will certainly be punished in Hellfire, where he shall dwell forever 1 He who kills himself with anything, Allah will torment him with that in the Hellfire 2 Among those before you, there was a man in anguish from his wound. So he took a knife and cut his hands until he bled to death. Allah said: “My servant has hastened the ending of his life, so I forbid the Paradise for him.”3 Quran: وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ عُدْوَانًا وَظُلْمًا فَسَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِ نَارًا وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى اللّهِ يَسِيرًا And do not kill yourselves. (For) surely, Allah is Most Merciful unto you. And whoever commits that through aggression and injustice, We shall cast him into the Fire, and that is easy for Allah. 4 وَلاَ تُلْقُواْ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ وَأَحْسِنُوَا 1618; إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ And do not cause your hands to contribute to your own destruction; but do good. Truly, Allah loves the good-doers 5 Lets then make quick distinction between these two types of acts: 1) an act of war which involves a suicide, such as a suicide bombing, and 2) an act of war which is apparently suicidal, such is a lone warrior charging the ranks of the enemy in the near-certain – never one hundred per cent certain – knowledge that he will be killed in the process. There is clearly an appreciable diference between the two. One act is clearly commendable (2nd), while the other is predetermined, intentional taking of ones own life in a clear act of suicide (1st). The first act is obvious suicide, while the second act is what is called iqtihām. Now since there is no precedent of suicide bombing in the history of Islam of the Sunni Muslim, lets take a look at what the two most revered Sunni scholars of our time said about this tactic: 1. Shaykh Muhammad Sālih bin Uthaymīn As for what some people do regarding activities of suicide, tying explosives to themselves and then approaching non-Muslims and detonating them amongst them, then this is a case of suicide; and Allah’s refuge is sought. So whoever commits suicide then he will be consigned eternally to Hellfire, remaining there forever, as occurs in the hadīth of the Prophet, saying: “And whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, then the iron weapon will remain in his hand, and he will continuously stab himself in his belly with it in the Fire of Hell eternally, forever and ever". As youcan see Shaykh Uthaymīn held suicide bombing to be harām in absolute terms because the tactic rests upon something which is itself harām in absolute terms (i.e. suicide): 2. Imam Muhammad Nāsir ad-Dīn al-Albāni We say suicide operations, now, in the present times, all of them are without legislation and all of them are forbidden. It could be that the person who commits it could fall into the category of those who remain in Hellfire forever, or it could be that he does not remain in the Hellfire forever... We know how fighting was in the past, with swords, spears (and the like). And this fighting, in those days would resemble (an act of) suicide. For example, when you get one soldier facing several soldiers from the enemy army of idolaters and he attacks them left and right… and there is little chance of him surviving this. We say about this, that in one way it is allowed and in another it is not... (Depending on) whether the Islamic ruler or the caliph of the Muslims permits. Because, the leader of the Muslims has to take into account the welfare of his people. The khalīfa of the Muslims should try to understand the situation as best of possible. He would understand when it is required for one hundred Muslim soldiers to fight one thousand of the polytheists… or less than that or more, and he calculates how many of them will perish – that is, tens of them will die, etc., but he will know the end result will be victory for the Muslims. As you can see Imam al-Albāni considered even the apparent suicidal charge of a lone warrior against larger enemy formations impermissible unless specifically sanctioned by the supreme Muslim ruler, the same exact prerequisite al-Albāni argued against the permissibility of jihad in our time. For suicide act, it is clear that al-Albāni does not permit it and agrees with the rest of Sunni Ulumaa. ** compiled by Miskiin xiin

Kudos for TFG 2.0 Ever since Somalia’s central government collapsed, the strategy of subsequent admins has been to get greater exposure with world powers so the plight of Somali people is articulated and made known to world and regional leaders. In fact what sat some transitional admins apart from the rest was the degree of that exposure. TFG 2.0 did great work on that account. Apparently it’s not enough to meet with world leaders. However, it’s a vital component in advancing Somali cause and getting support for it.

Jinku wuxuu galaa meel insigu gooyey waa hore e Gafka Faarax Shire baa tolkay gacala moodaayye'e It’s obligatory, Ibnu Taymiyya opined, to be wary making takfeer of Muslims due to their sins and mistakes… people made takfeer of the Muslims and they made permissible to take their blood and wealth . On this page we will show the erroneous ways armed religious groups in Somalia made that of which Allah made haraam halaal. Topics we will tackle include 1- Ruling with Other than What Allah Revealed [Muslim Scholars’ take on the often-cited Quranic verse] 2- Allying with non Believers 3- Takfeer Due to Sins [Alshabaab Hasty Verdicts vs. Salafi Exegesis] 4- Spilling Muslim Blood without Proper Authority [the killing spree in the name of Jihaad] A theologically inclined online dual with academic flavor Shafka hays dareen rag ay cadyiin shaarubaha sare'e

Suicide Bombing vs. Martyrdom in Jihad Mar baad arag markhuun boqol jiroon mayrasha aqoone’e Marna tobon jira mawlaca kitaab meeriyaad arage’e Very few Muslims if any would argue the permissibility of suicide act from an Islamic perspective. But in this age of Muslim grievance where anger and emotions seem to have replaced reasoning, suicide bombing has become a conventional military tactic that is analogous to Martyrdom in Jihad. On these pages, we will put our fingers on this sensitive issue with objectivity. We will examine following topics: 1- Permissibility of Suicide Bombing [Rulings of Muslim Scholars] 2- Effectiveness of Suicide Bombing as a military tactic [Does it really work?] 3- Difference between Martyrdom in Jihad and Suicide Bombing Stay tuned ya Jamaacah. Waxa shooki loo dhigay wadani sheeg haddaad garato