Amazing, mashallah.

^ Very interesting. I was always under the impression that for a person to be a kaffir, not only does he have to of have committed an act of kufr, but be unrepentant, continue to indulge in the sin and also believe that it is allowed (unless of course they were unaware, and once they have been told, if they continue with this opinion then he/she becomes a kaffir). So now brother Nur, you say that the Scholars of the salaf, deem it enough for a person to persist in an act of Kufr to become a kaffir, he/she does not even need to believe in it's legitimacy for them to be classified as such? Could you please elaborate on this topic, more importantly the daleel from Q&S and the views of the scholars. I realise you must be busy, but i am extremely curious, your points derail all that i have been taught on this topic.

Somali warlords want to impeach the president Foolish point Followed closely by another foolish comment The warlord's will lose their jobs, the PM can fire them anytime I’m beginning to think that this is useless-no surprise really, the effects of asking warlords to create peace :rolleyes: . Attempting to impeach the president or firing the PMs will take us back to square one. Impeach the president and he will oppose the newly elected president (just like he opposed the last president), firing these MPs will mean even more havoc from their corner- round and round decadence like a bunch of fools, one step, two step to hell with Somalia. Wonderful aint it

^loooooool Sister, don't worry about these two, they have what we would call a love-hate relationship. They are both opposite sides of the triblistic coin of Somalia .

Wind.talker, Whilst I agree with you to a degree your examples as they apply to Mogadishu are flawed. There aren’t exactly many Texans in Chicago are there? Mogadishu has many reer mudug/galgadud citizens and they do have reasonable influence. At the end of the day, the decision lies with the citizens of Xamar, it is up to them who they choose, but my opinion is that under ideal situations region is of little value for Xamar is home to all of them and it there where their interests lie. Even if they choose a native, it is their right, but for any of us to claim that a reer hobyo can never lead because he is not a native would be ludicrous. What is allowed and what can happen are not the same thing. A texan can be the mayor of Chicago if the people elect him, the point remains, he can be! Mobb, Thanks for the advice , but once again contrary to popular thoughts, not all the land is stolen , there are people from the same tribe of the USC who rightfully own the land just like they owned it when Siyaad Barre was our president. And this is the situation of my father’s friend who we are buying it from.

Qorshel, Whilst I disagree with the notion of taking the sins of others, as is the Christian doctrine where supposedly nabi ciise died for the sins of mankind. To take this in view of politics, to blame the decisions of a leader on the populace becomes flawed when in fact the people were unaware of the actions of their leader (for we all know most leaders are elected based on who can tell more lies and do it more fashionably). For example, the American people chose Bush Jr. based on his so-called abilities, he has made many grave errors- which could be argued that at first it was not their blame for he must serve his term and there isn’t much they can do to stop him, until of course elections came around again. What happened? They elected him once again knowing of his actions and now clear plans, with this they became bundled into the crime of their president. They knowingly elected a leader who they knew is a mass-murderer. Sure he might serve their purposes on other accounts, be they education, health or economics, but nonetheless he remains the same mass-murderer, which automatically outweighs any of his positives (which he has). Their guilt by association would of have also occurred had they supported their president in his efforts to kill innocent people (during his first term), but as we know (or so according to the polls), this was not the case. Likewise, as in the Somali case, we may not of have had a central government, but there were regional administrations, PL and SL. The south has never had a functioning regional government (post the civil war) and they have never elected for themselves a leader- simply because unlike PL and SL, the south has too many tribes to reconcile under similar regional administrations. Similarly, PL although they had a regional administration fell into the same category but they had not willingly chosen their leader at the time (CY) and hence could not be blamed for his or the administrations wrongs. If however, the current leader of PL was to hypothetically commit some sort of grave crime and they supported him, then yes they fall in the same basket. In relation to the people of Mogadishu, they have never chosen for any of these warlords to be their leaders and do not as a whole support their efforts (pockets may, but the city of millions as a whole certainly does not). The current dilemma for the good people of Mogadishu is how do you get rid of these warlords without erupting a civil war? When one takes actions, you must consider the consequences and weigh out the possibilities. One must consider whether or not it’s worth it or are there other methods to achieve the ultimate goal (complete eradication of the warlords). We know what happened in PL, where the civil war erupted between the good and the evil, many died and it is this, which has to be avoided. Once again, the same dillema lies in Mudug, do you go after the men who murdered and risk the eruption of even greater problems, or do you try and reconcile the warring groups? Just to give you an example, whilst I was there I attended a boarding school (where children from all over the country attended- Burco and Boosaaso when I was there) begun by one man and his wife. We spent the day with this man and his family, and over our meal he informed us of his other side-efforts. One that amazed me more than anything was his effort to reform the mooryan. I, to be honest had absolutely no compassion for them, now at least my rhetoric has toned down some for I realize I cannot paint every one of them with the same stroke. Many are young men with no families who have resorted to this lifestyle for there is no way out (as one young man said to a man who tried to advice him, adeer I do it because of gaajo, give me food and a living and I will stop). Anyway, this man provides after-school education to these young men, he teaches them how to read, write and provides for them teachers who can provide training to various trades so that they can escape the evil cycle. People like him are making a difference and whilst they are not waging an open war with firearms on the warlords, they are slowly enticing their supporters. This is just one example, but there were so many other such quiet wars and inshallah they will be successful and soon these warlords will loose the little support base they currently have. but still they have them as leaders, or are you in denial to this. You can call them leaders if you wish, sure it can be so (Saddam was a leader, dictator but nonetheless a leader), but they are not accepted leaders for the general public, for small minorities yes, but not the majority. That is the point which I struggle to accept. How can you blame me for the actions of one who does not even have my support? I don't know whether you are dismissing my earlier comment here, or are you now admitting that you have no idea of what happening not to forget you had the good news for us from our capital. I had a very good time in the capital and it restored my hope in Somalia, it certainly is not like many portray it to be. Having said that, my observation was that the warlords do not have the power that many of us seem to think, secondly each man is working for his own and not for tribalistic ideals, but how does that all link to this so-called arrangement to form a regional administration? Simply because I have not heard of it does not contradict my experience. Furthermore, we are all going by our own beliefs, you judge by what you read and i judged by what i saw and experienced. Just two sets of beliefs. As long as it takes I suppose They say Rome was not built in a day. But how would you have it? How is it do you think that the good people of Mogadishu (which is the majority as with any other area of the country) deal with the warlords? Confrontation, civil war? Or rather be patient and educate the people so that no longer will they need to rely on them? How would you handle it? I mean if the matter is truly so easy (as i get the feeling you believe-although i could be wrong), how could it be solved without bloodshed?

Are you sure, and what about other Somali regions? How did you measure this belief of yours? Based on what experiment have you done that ultimately gave you this result? Aside from the fact that I expressed it as a belief and not necessarily factual, I came to this conclusion on my recent trip to Somalia. Before my trip I reasoned that the people in Somalia must be the evil ones for then how could it be that these warlords are in power, they must all be tribalistic, after the trip I now know that even for those who are by their side many (especially the young men) don’t believe that they have an alternative (which I believe is the responsibility of the government to restore hope in the younger generation). Anyway, as I mingled with the people (believe you me I did that, I wanted the most exposure to life at home) as far as politics and warlords were concerned, the people were tired. They wanted a functioning government that would work for their interests; the fact that CY (an ex-warlord) was leading it did not matter to them. Likewise, these warlords had almost next to no influence on the lives of the average person and hence did not contribute to the war effort (the dispute in Mudug)-most of the money actually comes from overseas. Even the businessmen were so against this evil effort that they refused to pay the qaaraan and were receiving threats if they did not pay up- the people have realized that these people do not care for them. This is how I came to this conclusion . Nevertheless it is my opinion! What do u mean please, I heard that Hawiyistan government is in form there with ten worlords controlling one City. Also, im a bit lost in the world of Mogadishowers interest.. Help me You are asking the wrong person really. I don’t know anything about it. All I know is that they are scum and my stance is that if they do form a regional administration then I support it for that is better than nothing. And do you agree to the formation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Somalia? Sometimes yes, sometimes no! Whilst I believe that it would be fantastic to make things right, I believe it is too hard for Somalis. We are a people full of corruption and pathological liars (the leaders anyway). If it serves the best interest of Somalis and Somalia and if it will create harmony then yes I support, if however if will create greater rifts then no. This is why I disagree with Somalis in the diaspora trying to sue or penalize mps of the last government, it serves no real purpose. With this though, the problems are still impending and it may serve of purpose- it all depends on how the commission handles the situation. I have yet to make up my mind, but under ideal conditions, heck yeah! rahima , how would you compensate the Mogadisho residents whose properties were inherited by Galgaduud people? This is a perplexing question that will forever resound in the minds of most Business owners in Mogadisho. It duly haunts them: People who fled Mogadisho will come back and reclaim their own assets if it is land, house, hotels, restaurants. We all agree that occupying the lands/business of others is wrong- I want to establish this before I get accusations flying in my face. As a Muslim to say otherwise would be a sin. With that being said, as you know many in Mogadishu have changed (as has the whole of the country). Religiously speaking there was a war declared by the religious community of Mogadishu on the illegal occupation of peoples lands and you will now see that either many ex-Mogadishuites have sold their land (like many SLs and PLs) or are having it looked after by family members or close friends. Once we have a functioning government all will get their lands back (those that are illegally occupied)- that I have faith in .

The fisrt is its undertsanding of Somali factions and leaders and the supply of wepons it can give to any one faction or leader. Call me an idealist, but I believe that the people of Somalia are generally good people and many support warlords simply because they have no other alternative (as they see it). If this government were to work towards the unity of the people and actually make progress they would have an alternative. This government needs to keep this in mind and compete for the hearts of the people, provide them with jobs, education, healthcare and build the infrastructure (all of which the warlords cannot provide and hence the fight will be won). On the other hand, I believe diplomacy is the way to go with these warlords-Cabdiqaasim tried the hard-handed technique and we all know that that didn’t work hence we must take on a different approach (learn from the past). Now side stepping our emotions we see clearly the dangers it poses to derail the peace process and keep a wedge between Somaliland and the rest of the nation.’ Somaliland is fine; we need to fix our own backyards. Since PL and the south have decided that they still wish to be one country, we should be working to make progress and once we have reached a certain level of success, mainly attained peace and gained the basic necessitates for a functioning government, then can we sit at the table and discuss unity (making threats beforehand such as was reported of our president is not doing the idea of unity any favours). I personally do not believe that the majority of Somalilanders are against the idea of a united Somalia as such, but rather they do not see what there is to be united for, for there is no real progress. When we fix ours, then we can talk. We must also undertsand that Ethiopia itself is paranoid of Somalia and does not want to see it as an enemy... Currently, that I doubt, we all know that Ethiopia could crush Somalia in a minute second (honesty is the best medicine folks). What they do not want is a strong Somalia, for it is this, which they are afraid of, so for us to be enticed by the idea that they want the best for us is to be delusional. I still say keep them close with diplomcatic ties but keep the enemy off the sacred land.

Ooh sowie lady? Just never saw Duke's name on your response, so I considered as a normal reply to the topic. It's all good brother , it was my mistake i should of have made it clearer.

^No surprise there, it is Duke after all! The difference between you and I is that I believe that the average person in Mogadishu is so done with tribe that they will ultimately go with whoever is after their best interests, region or tribe is meaningless. Of course this is under the assumption that free and fair elections took place, but then again Somali are allergic to fairness.

Keeping your enemies closer does not necessarily translate to having them on top of you. Ethiopia could for the time being be kept close through diplomatic ties whilst not neglecting that which is most essential- for this government of ours to respect the views of those who they hope to lead and bring the peace and prosperity to. It’s not like you have to give up one for the other, we can still develop cordial ties with Ethiopia (after we gain strength, then comes bang, get back SG -I can dream ) but still respect the people of Somalia by excluding them from the troops deployment. This government is digging it’s own grave, all Somalis see is that CY is bringing Amxaaro, Alla ba’ayeey :eek: they’re coming to invade. They should be uniting not dividing. Bottom line, the opinions of the Somalis is more important and should be of greater importance to the government than that of Ethiopia and Ethiopians. Let’s be honest, I as a Somali (I consider myself to be an average Somali) do not want a government, which is willing to throw out my opinions like they are meaningless so as to please foreigners. No, I come first :mad: ! It’s all about me for it is my bloody country and my bloody government. Qorshel, I was responding to brother Duke, not the article as such .

I don't understand why you're arguing here. Because you felt the need to roll up he good and the bad of “reer hobyo†into one bundle. We need to make a distinction for every tribe has the good and the bad. You're saying that its okay for a Mudug/Galguud original (or anywhere else for that matter) to rule Muqdisho. How's that okay? You’re right, that is exactly what I am saying. So long as this group are decent god-fearing individuals who are after the best interests of the people which they lead and have the support of those they lead, then yes why not? I would say this irrespective of which region they originally hailed from. I would say the same even if it were a "somalilander". The problem with your reasoning is that you suggest that the folks of Mogadishu would automatically reject the possibility of a leader who has his roots in Hobyo simply because they will view it as an occupation. Like I said, you assume too much. Secondly, for you to say that there's no animosity between these two USC sub-clans just shows how naive you are to Somali politics. I'll leave it at that. You see, I’m not exactly judging by the views of those demented warlords and there just as demented supporters, rather like I said I was speaking of the average person. Trust me brother, in Somalia, the average person is busy working for their livelihood and will associate with anyone so long as they serve their best interests, qabiil is minor to most. Like I’ve said before, those who seem so engrossed in qabiil are not the ones back home, but rather those of us sitting comfortably in our homes in the west, sending back hundreds of thousands of dollars per year so that these same demented warlords can create more havoc which ultimately ends up killing those who don’t care for these qabiil issues anyway.

This is the part which most irritates me about this whole ordeal. It seems that some are using this effort to execute their hate and hoped failure of the government which they see as belonging to the one man. Whilst it’s true that at one time or another almost all the warlords were in bed with Ethiopia, let’s not forget that also intertwined in the same “NO†vote with these traitors are decent good people who ae sincerely after the best interests of the people which they represent. At the end of the day, the point still remains, why is there this insistence on having Ethiopian troops part of the FTs? I still cannot work it out. If the president and PM see that this is a touchy issue for many Somalis, then why not simply replace them with troops from another African country? I don’t know if it’s just me, but this seems to be basic. Furthermore, whilst I agree that there should be peace between Somalia and it’s neighbours (including Ethiopia), I believe that the government should be sensitive to the feelings of the people that they lead. I’m sure we all agree that the average Xaliima and Faarax are not exactly delighted over the prospect of having the Amxaaro come on to the land of Somalia. I don’t see how having cordial relations with ones neighbours is linked to accepting them as part of the FTs deployment.

^ Let's just say that i have complete confidence in Horn , he is way too mature for this, threatening him won't get you far considering that you don’t even know which cafe he attends (and no I don’t take bribes , I will not tell, my lips are sealed). Also, he does not elicit any obscene behaviours. He is by far one of the most respectful and mature nomads here- I’m sure I am not alone is attesting to that. As for you, really brother this is childish, don't worry about it . He holds one opinion, you another, so what! If you can't discuss it without threatening then leave it.

^Or else what? looool What is wrong with people these days, threatening each other over the net like it matters. Sky, it's only the net brother, relax mate . Do what everyone else here seems to do, you have insults/accusations thrown at you, throw them right back, i'm sure Horn won't take it serious nor will he threaten you . In fact, i'm sure he'll just laugh it off.

lol rahima, well the Amxaaro has been exluded from IGAD peackeepers. But my point above was that Amhaaro would have been part of IGAD troops as one team. Such an extreme reaction to Amhaaro is groundless when there is indifference to the daily sufferings of our own people at the hands of those you share with this domino effect . Whilst i don't find what could possibly be funny about what i said, allow me to make one simple point, THERE ARE OTHER BLOODY CHOICES (excuse me for shouting ). If indeed the president and PM and some ministers are insistent on bringing in foreign troops why must they insist on having amxaaro along with the pack? We all know of the history between the two countries, and it ain't exactly like they couldn't find any others. Anyway to me i disagree with any gaalo troops setting foot in Somalia, the troops (if indeed they are required) should only be from Muslim countries. As for this suffering you speak of, the consequences of bringing in the arch enemy on to our land, giving them jurisdiction over our affairs and letting them have a hand in our future policies will guarantee more suffering and devastation to our people than they are currently in, once you let them in, you can kiss good-bye self-governance. In my opinion that sort of slavery is worse. Like I said, this whole motion is a shame and slap in the face for all those who have died to keep this from happening. Good on all of you (bravo, give yourselves a pat on the back), make futile the efforts of the true heroes of Somalia, from Axmed Gurey, to the Sayyidd, to the countless Shuhadaa’ who we could never mention by name.

did you see it on TEN news Rahima OMG what a shame It’s where I saw it first, it was my day off, having a nice day lazing around at home and then bang I get hit with this from TEN :eek: . First I laughed, then as the reporter went on to mock our parliament and our version of democracy (not that I value it, but nonetheless it was an insult directed at us), I became ashamed and embarrassed, then as the cow went on infuriated. I contemplated writing to them, but then by mid-afternoon my anger had subsided realizing that we as Somalis cause the whole world to laugh at us, it sure as heck was not the first and I’m sure not the last so I decided not to waste my time.

Women leading men in prayers Abu Yusuf Tawfique Choudhury Article ID: 1212 | 138 Reads To my respected and noble brothers and sisters in Islam, Without doubt, my brothers and sisters will agree that this modern age that we live in has brought with it various movements that have numerous benefits as well as ills. From them is a movement that attempts to free women from the throngs of social taboo and culture into parity with men in all affairs. This movement has its benefits as well as ills. From its benefits are that it advocates freeing women from ignorant customs and social taboo and attempts to restore her God given rights. From its ills however, is that it goes beyond the boundaries of heavenly wisdom and advocates for itself true justness in the distribution of obligation between men and women. It forgets that just like the day is different from the night and each has its own qualifications and specific activities, so too do men and women. Allah tells us in the Quran: "By the night as it envelopes, and by the day in its blazing glory, It is he who has created men and women, and similarly too are your activities and obligations different…" Unfortunately we find that this movement has also found fertile ground amongst the Muslims such that we find various intellectuals of this time calling for a fresh reading into the Fiqh of women in Islam and their rights and obligations. They forget however that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam had said: "There will not cease to be a group amongst my Ummah, clear upon the truth; nothing will harm them until the command of Allah comes." Based on this clear authentic hadeeth, it is impossible to think that for the last 1400 years the Muslims have been incorrect in the matter of women and their rights and obligations. Infact based on this hadeeth, one must strongly condemn every new argument that is brought out to "free" women that was not already there at the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. It is as Imam Malik rahimahullah had rightly said: "That which was not religion at the time of the companions cannot be religion today." In this regard, I have come to know of an article or email written about how women should be allowed to lead men in prayers. It quotes certain scholars who supposedly support permissibility and attempts to quote evidences to validate the claim. However I have found that this article/email distorts the true picture and does not mention the full scenario and counter claims that are so important in intellectual debates. I have also found that there is a clear misunderstanding of the issues involved showing that the person has little grounding in the sciences of Fiqh and understanding of the texts and has not researched the matter thoroughly. I advise such people to fear Allah and remember that speaking without knowledge and merely cutting and pasting quotes from books and the web without proper authority and qualification can be truly painful and embarrassing in this life and the next. In view of this, I see it as an obligation on myself, as a student of Fiqh and as a person who has been given ijaazah in the Hanbali madhab, to clarify this issue so that it may serve to end the dispute that ensues from lack of knowledge. I ask Allah to bless this article and to make it for His sake only and to bless me with justness in what I write. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the name of Allah Women leading men in prayers This topic has numerous issues pertaining to it; however I will only deal with two issues of contention: Women leading men in an obligatory prayer Women leading men in a supererogatory prayer 1. Women leading men in an obligatory prayer: The scholars of Islam have complete consensus on the fact that it is not permissible for women to lead a man in an obligatory prayer. Ibn Hazm [d. 456A.H.] rahimahullah says: "They [the scholars] have agreed that a woman is not permitted to lead a man in [obligatory] prayer. If they were to do that [i.e. a woman led a man in obligatory prayer], then their prayers are invalidated by complete consensus." [Maratibul-Ijma, Ibn Hazm, p27, Darul-kutub al-Ilmiyyah] Imam Ibn Hubierah [d. 560A.H.] rahimahullah says: "They [the scholars] have complete consensus that it is not permissible for a woman to lead a man in prayer in obligatory prayers." [Al-Ifsah, Al-wazir Ibn Hubirah, vol. 2, pg 42, Markaz al-Fajr] Similarly has also been reported by Ibn Abdul Bar in al-Istidhkar and by Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni. This is based on the fact that it has never been reported that a women ever led men in obligatory prayers (except that which has been reported from the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa – wherein she led people of her household – as we will mention shortly). Imam Ibn Rushd mentions in Bidayatul-Mujtahid: "And the majority had agreed upon preventing her from leading the men in prayer because where it to be permissible, then it would have been reported from the time of the first generation [of Muslims]. Similarly as the sunnah as regards women is for them to be behind men in prayer, then it is to be understood from this that it is not permitted for them to stand before them." [bidayatul-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, vol.1, pg354, Maktaba-Ibn Taymiyyah, Cairo] Similarly al-Khattabi says in his notes on Sunnah-Abi Dawud during explanation of the hadeeth (no. 612) in the chapter "If there were 3 groups then how are they to stand [behind the Imam]": "And in this [hadeeth] is proof that the leading of women over men is not permissible, because just as she was prevented from being in the same row as men, then for her to be in front of them is more so [in prohibition]." [Al-Khattabi, Ma'alim us-Sunan, vol.1, pg408 (printed with Sunan Abi Dawud), Darul-Hadeeth, Cairo]. It is also to this extent that Ibn Masud was reported to have said: "Keep them back just as Allah has kept them back." [Reported by Abdur-Razzaq in al-Musannaf, 3/149, al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut] – Authenticated by Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Bari [vol.1, pg.400, Maktabah as-Salafiyyah, Beirut] Also what is interesting is that the authentic narrations from Ibn Masud as well as another one from Aishah radiallahu anhuma states that the practise of the women leading the men in prayer was a practise invented by the Jews and it was for this reason and from that time onwards when menstruation was decreed upon the women of this world. Ibn Masud said as reported by Abdur-Razzaq in his Musannaf and authenticated by Ibn Hajr: "The men and women in the time of the Children of Israel used to pray together and the women used to lead the men in prayer. So Allah caused them to have menstruation and so stopped them from the mosques." As for the narration from Aishah, then it states: "The women of the Children of Israel used to take wooden shoes and to be distinguished and lead the men in the masjids, so Allah prohibited the masjids upon them [the women] and punished them with menstruation." As for what has been reported to be differences from Ashub, at-Tabari, al-Muzani, Abu-Thawr, may Allah have mercy on them all, then the explanation of it is two fold: a general explanation and a specific one. General explanation: The differences from the above reported Imams was after the time of Ijma and thus their differences are not taken into account to disrupt the ijma in this issue. It is to this effect that Ibn Rushd says: "and Abu Thawr and at-Tabari shaddhaa [Ar. Shadhaa – a term in usul-ul-fiqh meaning to be strange in this matter and by themselves going against an opinion which was ijma and prevalent at that time] and permitted the women to lead the men in prayers in general." [bidayatul-Mujtahid, Vol.1, pg.354] Specific explanation: It is only Abu Thawr and at-Tabari who clearly allowed women to lead the prayers over men without restriction. As for Ashub, then he did not hold the same opinion as Abu Thawr and at-Tabari. Rather he held the opinion that – where it to happen that a women lead a man in prayer and the men did not know about it, then later on found out that it was a woman, then they do not have to repeat their prayers – because of the fact that the person did not know who was leading the prayers. He also said the same thing for a person who is led by a kafir in prayer and he does not know about it. As any person can see, this statement from Ashub does not necessarily dictate that women are allowed to lead men in prayer. Also as for al-Muzani, then we do not have a direct statement from him regarding the matter of women leading men in prayer. All we know, is that the analogy of the opinion of al-muzani of a kafir leading the prayer and thereafter those behind him not being obligated to repeat the prayer would therefore necessitate that this opinion would also be that if a women were to lead the prayer and the men did not know about it, then they would not need to repeat the prayer. [al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah, Vol.3, pg32-33, Dar Al-Hijr] So how is this same as saying that al-Muzani held the opinion that women are permitted to lead the prayer? As any person can see, this does not necessarily dictate that women are allowed to lead men in prayer. Also we must clearly remember the principle of Osoolul-Fiqh that says: Idha dakhala ihtimaal batala al-istidlaal [Meaning: If a matter becomes an issue that has numerous possibilities, then using it as a witness is nullified]. So because the reported opinions of Ashub and Al-Muzani can have various possibilities deduced from it, then to conclude that they held the opinion that women can lead men in prayer is not permissible nor suitable as evidence. As for what is used in our times to say that women may lead men in prayers – then it is the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa radiallaahu anha who was killed by the boy and girl she used to look after and died a Shaheedah just as Rasullah said she would. The Prophet sallaalahu alaihi wa sallam, at the time of the battle of Badr permitted this Shaheedah radiallahu anha to lead her household in prayer and kept a very old man as the mu'azzin to give the adhaan for her. [Reported by Abu Dawud 1/139 and Musnad Imam Ahmed 6/405 and certified hasan by Ibn Hajr] However as we know that Rasulullah infact allowed her to lead the women in prayer and not men. It is for this reason that al-Baihaqi reports this hadeeth under the chapter heading: "Chapter 51: Permissibility of women leading other women in prayer rather than men." – and thereafter al-Baihaqi reports the hadeeth as reported by those before him. Also ad-Daraqutni clearly reports this same incident with the wording "women of her household" and clarifies that the narrations point to the fact that Rasulullah only permitted her to lead the women in prayer, and so reports: "Ahmed bin Abbas al-Baghawi reported to me that Umar bin Shabah Abu Ahmed Az-Zubairi that al-Waleed bin Jami from his mother, from Umm Waraqa that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam permitted her to have a person do the Adhan for her and for her to stand and lead the women of her household in prayer." [sunan ad-Daraqutni, Vol. 1, pg. 279, Darul-Ma'rifah, Beirut] It is for this reason that Ibn Qudaamah says in al-Mughni: "And the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa is only that she was permitted to lead the women in her household in prayer. Such has been reported by ad-Daraqutni – and it is obligatory to accept this extra [wording]." [Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudaamah, Vol.3, Pg.33, Dar al-Hijr] Therefore based on this, the statement of the some of the ulema who may have understood from this hadeeth to mean that Umm Waraqa led men in prayer as well such as led the old man who used to give the adhan for her and the young boy who she used to look after because of what they deduced from the narrations in Abu Dawud, then we say to this – that the narration of ad-Daraqutni is the clarification of the unclear wording of "Ahlu-Dariha" (the people of her household) and clarifies that it means women of her household and so we say that it cannot be said that she lead men in prayer. So we say that therefore that the opinions of Abu Thawr and At-Tabari – these two Imams rahimahumullah and may Allah enter them in the highest of paradise – is incorrect and their proofs from this incident are invalid. This is as far as the issue of women leading men in obligatory prayers is concerned. 2. Women leading men in supererogatory prayers As for women leading men in supererogatory prayers, then the ulema are divided on this issue and there is no ijma available. The first opinion: That it is not permissible for women to lead men in any prayers at all, even the supererogatory prayers and this is the opinion of the vast majority of the ulema from the present and the past. It the opinion of the 4 madhabs (yes even the hanbali madhab – See [Al-Insaaf, Al-Mawardi, Vol.2, pg.263]) and the Tabiyyeen and the 7 fuqaha of Medinah and the Dhahiri madhab. The second opinion: That it is permissible for women to lead men in supererogatory prayers such as nafl and taraweeh prayers provided that all the men that are present do not know how to recite the quran and the woman is far well versed than them in the Quran. There are two narrations from Imam Ahmed, one allowing them to lead in nafl prayers and another one allowing them to lead in taraweeh prayers – this later narration being well known amongst the earlier hanbalis. The third opinion: Women can lead men in prayers in general – as is the opinion of Abu Thawr and at-Tabari as has preceded and this opinion has already preceded refutation of. As for the proofs for the first opinion, then it is as has preceded in our discussion of the proofs for why a woman is not allowed to lead in obligatory prayers. As for proofs for the second opinion, then it is hadeeth of Umm Waraqa as has preceded wherein the scholars who are of this opinion specified the hadeeth to mean that Rasulullah had permitted her to lead in non-obligatory prayers. Also they deduced from the extra wording in some of the narrations of the hadeeth which report that Umm Waraqa was one of the ones who had read the quran – that women leading men in prayer is conditional upon there not being any men qualified to lead the prayer. However this second opinion which is held by some of the scholars of the hanbali madhab is not the correct position in the madhab. Rather it is the marjuuh [Ar. Marginalised and incorrect] opinion as stated by the Ulema of the hanbali madhab themselves. Al-Mardawi states in al-Insaaf which is regarded as the guiding book that defines the position of the hanbali madhab; he says in explanation of the saying: "And his saying: And it is not permissible for a women to lead a man in prayer": "This the [position of the hanbali] madhab definitely. In alMustawab, it says – and this opinion is correct – and it is the position supported by the author; and this is the choice of Abul-Khattab and ibn Abdoos in his Tadhkirah and it is opinion strongly stated in al-Kafi, al-Muharrar, Al-Wajeez, al-Munawwar, al-Muntakab, Tajreedul-Inayat, Ifadaat…" [Al-Insaaf, Al-Mardawi, Vol.2, pg.263, Dar Ihyaa al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut] As for the proof of the second opinion, then the Sheikh of the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudaamah rahimahullah says in refutation of those hanbalis who hold the opinion that it is ok in taraweeh prayers provided she knows more Quran: "And to specify that [i.e the hadeeth of Umm Waraqa] is to do with the Taraweeh prayers and putting the condition that she stands back [i.e. stands in the middle instead of in front as the Imam normally does] is legislation without proof and goes against the principles without evidence. Therefore it is not permissible to go towards this [i.e. not permissible to hold this opinion]." [Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, Vol.3, pg.33, Dar al-Hijr] Thus we conclude that the most correct position is the opinion that states impermissibility of women leading the prayers in nafl and superogatory prayers as well as obligatory prayers over men. And Allah knows best. As for women giving the khutbah then it is a matter never heard of before. Never has it been reported in the time of the Prophet nor with the 4 Khalifahs that a woman was allowed to give the khutbah for jumah and therefore it is a bidaa of our times. It has never been reported that Aishah radiallahu anha and she was the most knowledgeable of people in Makkah (when she had moved there during the time of Uthman radiallaahu anhu's Khilaafah) that she ever gave the Friday khutbah even though she was the most knowledgeable of the companions in Makkah at that time. Infact it has further been reported that when she used to talk and answer questions when people came to ask her for her fatwa, she used to put her little finger of her right hand in the side of her mouth so as to muffle and gargle her speech, so that people may not be tempted by her voice. So in response to women giving Jum'ah khutbahs we say that this is an innovation and never established in the time of revelation and that which was not religion at their time cannot be religion now. And I remind my brothers and sisters again and warn them from following the footsteps of the children of Israel where their women used to pray with the men in the mosques and show and lead the men, at which time Allah punished them. I also remind them of the saying of Aishah radiallaahu anha – "Where rasulullah to see the women of our time, then he would not have allowed them to go to the mosques." And this is our mother Aishah radiallahu anha – a woman – saying this about the women in her times. So what of the women in ours? And Allah knows best. And may the blessings and protection of Allah be upon our beloved prophet and messenger and upon his family and his companions until the day of Judgement. And our final call is that all praise is to Allah, the Lord of Mankind. Abu Yusuf Tawfique Chowdhury Melbourne, Australia abuyusuf@islaam.net

Nur, A young Muslim becomes religiously motivated. He wants to learn about his faith and turns to the Internet as a source of Islamic knowledge and as a place to find a Muslim community. He visits some Islamic websites and starts following the discussion on various Muslim online forums. What he finds is a lot of sharp criticism and people incessantly taking one another to task. Even prominent scholars seem to be involved. This disheartens and discourages the young Muslim. I read this and it was almost like reading my life. At the young age of 16 I decided and consciously acknowledged that I was the slave of Allah and hence had to be obedient to the best of my ability. Considering that I did not have many other avenues to gain Islamic knowledge, like many others I turned to the net. After two years or so, I became so disheartened and stopped reading these sites. Instead of gaining more hope in the ummah, my heart was slowly dying and lost almost all hope. I can’t tell you how sad I was, I’d go to our local Islamic center and they would be talking about the brothers and sisters down the road as though they were enemy no. 1 and then come on the net to find the same. The only things, which kept me in the circle, were your posts brother Nur and the Somali dugsi, which I attended weekly. I’d come for my weekly dose of Imaan-booster and as it began to wither away I’d come back for another shot. And with that I await with anticipation your points on Istixlaal (jzk for the translation Baashi ).

^

it is a nice warm day today across the UK Ha :confused: ? Is it ever warm in the UK ?

Bashi, Bashi, you have ruined my day , made me miserable, had me wake up to my amassed debt over the past 4 years, add this year and that becomes five. Inshallah this will be the final year of my double-degree (yep which means I have more debt than the average xalima), then off to graduate school (I have to so as to get to where I want). Even worse if all goes well, I might head off to graduate medicine (another 30,000 or so). I’ve been working for as long as I can remember, yet somehow have almost nothing to show for it :eek: , and i'm not even a shopaholic :confused: . I have to get smart about my money; this has gone on long enough. Only 21 and enough debt to make me have a heart attack. Much appreciated Bashi, but we might need your reminder in a few months or so before we slack off again .

^I cannot believe that Somalis would reason such things. Boys, the mujahidiin who have died in the struggle to free Western Somalia would be turning in their graves now. I don't understand how one can bring themselves to accept amxaaro on Somali soil. Instead of working to help our brethren who are under their occupation (and trust me i know of their suffering as i have many many family memebrs who live there) we are allowing them to progress further.

whats up with the bodyquard of dayniile.com? He's only telling the truth, all sites are basically propganada machines for the intersts of their tribe. How hypocritical is it for one to cry over the credibility of dayniile when they post and refer to articles from Allpuntland or such likes as though they are biblical.

This is embarassing though.