The Winds of Change: Triumphant Mujahideen

[Sherban Shabeel]

I'm not Somali, so I can't say what's best for Somalis. But I believe the state shouldn't enforce religion, because it's a big waste of energy.

 

You either accept God or you don't. Some people will follow his rules strictly and be admired for it, others will follow his rules more loosely. But the thing is you can't terrorize people into having faith or being religious. The "faith" you get as a result is fake, it's not valid. If it doesn't come from your heart, if you just pretend so you don't get whipped/stoned to death, then it's not real faith.

 

What I agree with is to educate people and teach them about religion, but not to shove it down their throats.

 

Somalis abroad, and Muslims abroad in general, would have a hard time adapting to life in a Shabaab-controlled Somalia. Many of them drink and/or smoke weed, most do it openly, some hide. I know from personal experience.

 

In Saudi Arabia, the princes drink like there's no tomorrow and they don't hide. The men of the people are a bit more discreet, but they still have sex with other people's wives or with hookers behind closed doors, or out in the desert.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that people will do what they want to and no law is going to change that. It's up to them to turn to God (or not). The state can't do anything about it, except make things difficult for everyone.

 

Maybe Sharia law is a good idea for Somalia, but it has to be applied in a just manner. For instance, I'm not very educated when it comes to Islam, but I believe you need 3 witnesses to convict someone no?

 

So people will do what they want behind closed doors, and be discreet. People won't get stoned to death just because someone *heard* they slept around.

 

Another thing is it has to be adapted to the current situation in Somalia. I'm very sorry, but I think God expected us to be intelligent enough to realize that some things don't apply universally.

 

For instance how can you possibly support amputation for thieves in a country where hundreds of thousands have NOTHING TO EAT? If this was a country at peace, prosperous and rich, and everyone was looked after, then yes you can amputate thieves' arms. But when people need to steal to survive, I don't think this is a just punishment.

 

All in all Sharia law would do Somalia some good, if applied considerately, and if not used as a mere tool (a la Shabaab) to terrorize the people into submission.

 

Remember, faith and good will has to ultimately come from within. Education is good, but stoning/whipping/amp utating people into submission just doesn't work.

 

Unless you keep them very well fed. But that's another discussion altogether.

[The Zack]

Saddiq, well said! I agree with you 100%.

[Sophist]

NG, I agree with his views apart from Sharif being a Kafir. I am of the opinion, you can fight the TFG without being Kufaar.

 

Regards,

 

S.

[Saddiiq]

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel:

[QB] I'm not Somali, so I can't say what's best for Somalis. But I believe the state shouldn't enforce religion, because it's a big waste of energy.

Every state enforces laws, and in Islam laws are regarded as a fundamental element of religion. So if you're not following the religion of Allah, then you're following the religion of Thomas Jefferson & Benjamin Franklin. There is no "leave to Caesar what is Caesars", or leave to Jefferson what is Jeffersons.

 

For example (and there are many), Allah swt says "inna anzalna Ilayka Kitaaba bil Haqqa li tahkumu bayna an-naas" 4:105 (We have revealed the Book of truth to govern mankind)

 

 

You either accept God or you don't. Some people will follow his rules strictly and be admired for it, others will follow his rules more loosely. But the thing is you can't terrorize people into having faith or being religious. The "faith" you get as a result is fake, it's not valid. If it doesn't come from your heart, if you just pretend so you don't get whipped/stoned to death, then it's not real faith.

Remember we're speaking with regard to laws and not religion in and of itself. Nobody has the right to enforce religion on people, the Quran says "Laa Ikraaha fi deen" (no compulsion in religion). But you still have to abide by certain principles when living in any society, because all societies have moral codes, whether it's the morality of Allah and His swt Messenger, or the morality Frank, Robert & Sally. You can't publicly walk around naked in America and expect the authorities no to say anything. But you can walk around naked as you want in your house. It's human nature to separate private and public matters. The difference here is man-made morality changes with time, while morality in Islam is constant because Allahs standards are not governed by time.

 

Secondly with regards to enforcing religious beliefs, this is not done. Once someone is a Muslim they have taken an oath to fulfill their duty as a Muslim. Nobody is going to ask a Muslim whether or not he prayed, or kick in his door & see whether or not he's fasting. He can do what he wants. But he can't walk around the streets with a burger and fries while everybody is fasting, or chillax on the street while everybody else is answering the call to prayer. He can eat at home, and go home if he's not going to pray. If one isn't a Muslim in the 1st place, then these don't apply. There is a separate contract that applies to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state.

 

Maybe Sharia law is a good idea for Somalia, but it has to be applied in a just manner. For instance, I'm not very educated when it comes to Islam, but I believe you need 3 witnesses to convict someone no?

 

So people will do what they want behind closed doors, and be discreet. People won't get stoned to death just because someone *heard* they slept around.

It's 4. And the objective of the state isn't to see and hear all things, that's for the Almighty. Private matters are private matters. It's not allowed for the state to violate peoples privacy just to flex the states muscle, like some governments do in the 'free world'. On the contrary, Islam encourages people to conceal their wrong doings. Repentance is only to God.

 

This applies to adultery aswell. For example a man approached the Prophet Muhammed saws and informed him that he had committed adultery, the Prophet basically asked the man 'are you mad?', turned away and gave the man the opportunity to walk away, but the man insisted. So the punishment was implemented. So, people are given the opportunity to review their confessions, such as the case of the young lady in Kismaayo (and btw you have a right to believe your sources regarding the incident, my objective is not to debate whether or not Shabaab gain anything by unjustly killing people)

 

Another thing is it has to be adapted to the current situation in Somalia. I'm very sorry, but I think God expected us to be intelligent enough to realize that some things don't apply universally.

 

For instance how can you possibly support amputation for thieves in a country where hundreds of thousands have NOTHING TO EAT? If this was a country at peace, prosperous and rich, and everyone was looked after, then yes you can amputate thieves' arms. But when people need to steal to survive, I don't think this is a just punishment.

There are conditions that apply for theft in order to punish individuals. 1stly the state is expected to collect charity from Muslim households as this is one of the pillars of Islam. So assisting the weak is a pillar of Islam to begin with.

 

2ndly, people are not punished for stealing survival items, or taking items that are just publicly laying around. But for example the last group of young men who were punished in Moqdisho, stole guns & cell phones. To me it sounds like they were trying to start a highway bandit militia, rather than survival. Of course there are ignorant and immoral people here, there and everywhere that responded 'ohh they're just kids, give them a break'. And why should they do that? Look at what you're teaching your children.

 

All in all Sharia law would do Somalia some good, if applied considerately, and if not used as a mere tool (a la Shabaab) to terrorize the people into submission.

In Islam people are judged by their actions, because we can't read whats in peoples hearts. So people who claim al-Shabaab are just doing what they do as a tool to gain power etc. are actually claiming to know whats in peoples hearts, which is an act of shirk. And they have their reasons for doing this, which Allah knows whether they're honest about it or not. They need to be aware of what they say, and don't just say things because you perceive it to be a political gain to slander your opponent.

 

Assalamu aleykum.

[Sherban Shabeel]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the last part about me trying to read into Shabaab hearts.

 

I'm just looking at the facts here, and I don't think it's difficult to understand why I've lost all faith in Shabaab since May 2009.

 

The opposition was repeatedly invited to talks from January to May. Most of these invitations were refused. And they weren't invited to negotiate with Ethiopia or AMISOM, but with their fellow Muslim brothers from the government.

 

In late April, Sheekh Aweys was WELCOMED by Shariif back to Xamar (he'd been hiding in Asmara for quite a while). Two weeks later, he and the Shabaab/Xizbul-Islam alliance launch a bloody coup which would (un)fortunately fail.

 

Ever since, the opposition groups have been engaged in a bloody war with their fellow Muslim brethren under the pretext of chasing out the "invaders" (Christian peace-keeping troops from the African Union).

 

How many "kuffar" AMISOM soldiers have died in this war? You can probably count them on one hand. How many Somalis?

 

That question is best left unanswered.

 

So is this the group that you want ruling Somalia? Is this a group truly concerned about Islamic Law and the teachings of God?

 

A group that instead of sharing power attempts to take it by force, at the cost of hundreds of fellow Somalis' and fellow Muslims' blood.

 

I remember May 9th like it was yesterday. The day Somalia's greatest chance for peace in 20 years was squandered because of GREED and JELOUSY.

[Saddiiq]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the last part about me trying to read into Shabaab hearts.

 

I'm just looking at the facts here, and I don't think it's difficult to understand why I've lost all faith in Shabaab since May 2009.

To be clear, I'm not talking about you in particular. With that said I'll address your points.

 

 

The opposition was repeatedly invited to talks from January to May. Most of these invitations were refused. And they weren't invited to negotiate with Ethiopia or AMISOM, but with their fellow Muslim brothers from the government.

 

In late April, Sheekh Aweys was WELCOMED by Shariif back to Xamar (he'd been hiding in Asmara for quite a while). Two weeks later, he and the Shabaab/Xizbul-Islam alliance launch a bloody coup which would (un)fortunately fail.

1st of all, the whole concept of legitimacy by way of a UN rubber stamp is a myth and quite an arrogant myth. So calling it a conflict between government and opposition is a play on words, and doesn't at all reflect the situation.

 

To address the basic issues, Al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam have not changed the position they've had from the beginning which was always the withdrawal of Ethiopian and AU troops, as well as the removal of those who brought them, the tfg. Sharif and his group decided to abandon that position and join the tfg & make his former enemies into his most precious asset. The Islamic groups didn't make this transition with him. So the story begins not where you started it, but from Sharif aligning himself against his former self, and by extension against the Islamic groups he led at one time.

 

2ndly, after the Ethiopians withdrew, they sat in Djibouti, quickly formed their gov't, selected their cabinet, divided the map of Somalia amongst their MP's, and then went to Moqdisho to try and install the gov't expecting al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam to simply hand over all the territory they administer & recognize their authority. Again, doing things backwards. If you've noticed, al-Shabaab or H.I hasn't called itself the gov't of Somalia, although they control more territory. This is because they know it's premature, and that you have to actually control a land before declaring yourself a governor of it. There are many preparations that have to made, people to be consulted etc. This was the formula that made the ICU successful, and this is the formula al Shabaab and H.I are following.

 

As for your point about Aweys. Aweys was in Asmara, Sharif was in Djibouti. Sharif arrived through Moqdisho international airport which was held by AU. Aweys arrived through an airstrip south of Moqdisho controlled by his group, and went to Moqdisho by land. Nobody did anybody any favors. And referring to the current fighting as a "coup" is another play on words based on a false claim to legitimacy. If we're to ask who started the fighting, I think a quick read of the events I mentioned in the last paragraph make it clear who the aggressive party was.

 

 

How many "kuffar" AMISOM soldiers have died in this war? You can probably count them on one hand. How many Somalis?

Amisom never really had to sacrifice lives, with the tfg militias so generously dedicating their lives to gaurding their bases. All they've done is send in heavy armor to provide cover for tfg counter offensives. Their casualties until recently, are taken from attacks on their bases, which they respond to by raining artillery shells on civilians whom they regard as potential enemies anyways (as they've stated). The tfg gave them this luxury.

[Abtigiis]

Dear Saddiqui,

 

 

Originally posted by Saddiiq:

[QB] 2ndly the Shariya came as a whole, and in order for it to work, it must be applied in whole because when you remove one piece, the rest will collapse.

Why? Why will it collapse if the modality of punishment is revised? What you said is just an assertion with no feet to stand on. It is your opinion, but sadly, the argument is devoid of proof or logic!

 

If you say we will not cut the hand of a thief, how are you going to tell the homosexual he is disobeying Allah? He'll simply reply 'so are you'. You pick and choose with regard to theft, he picks and chooses with regard to sexuality.

Why is cutting a hand the silver bullet. You can say we should heed the decree, but to try to provide reason for it is laughable. I prefer Sheikhs who tell me 'that is the word of Allah, Please accept. He knows best!".

 

You don't like amputations maybe because;

1) you havn't read ayah (5:38)

2) maybe you have read the ayah but you think blood is gross, in which case we'll go back to what I said about human nature. Maybe you've been trained to believe taking something that doesn't belong to you is not that big a deal. Because statistics prove that's exactly what the kuffar system does.

What does the Ayyah say that we don't already know? I know all the caveats, but it doesn't offer solace. The other allusion to me being 'wont to take what is not mine' is pure drivel. It doesn't add any substance to the debate here.

 

Then the thief is back on the streets. What does society say. 'Oh he did time for armed robbery, stay out of his way' etc. And how about when they see the man with one hand. Not that cool anymore. Allah knows the nature of his creation, how they think, how they behave etc. Cut the mans hand, he won't do it again, and when the kids see him they won't say 'wow he did time for armed robbery, stay out of his way!'. They'll say 'look at this poor man with 1 hand, i don't wanna be that that'. Justice is not just putting on the hand cuff, and placing somebody in a box.

And what about the theif who repents? Must he live with perpetual disability for a mistake he might have done in split seconds? Are the children who will take example of a 'handless and legless man" his too? What will those feel? And why execution is not stopping drug trafficers from going on their business? No matter what deterent you put forth, there will always be those who will commit crimes.

 

 

Your point about shopping is false. If there is a condition, mention the condition and explain why the idea of mahram is unnecessary when you see the result of your thinking in the west. Even women in the west ask to be walked when they go here or there, and if we do a survey to see just how many of them get harassed on a day to day basis.

So are you saying the idea of Mahram is purely for women's security? Why can't the woman take the discretion of deciding whether they are in danger or not? And will it stop robbers in Jo'burg that a skinny somali is swaggering beside his wife, if they really mean to strike?What is false here is your claim that Mahram is about security. By the way, is this not defeating your same argument about cutting hands being a strong deterrent. If rapists are to be stonned to death, why need this extra precaution. That ALONE should have done the job of ensuring safety for women, if we go by your logic about the thieves.

 

 

 

Ban on TVs or TV channels? False

Ban on Internet? False

Ban on "all forms of access to other sources of knowledge and enlightenment"? False

Maybe my statement is false if you take it LITERALLY! But please tell us the list of what is not allowed? I reckon it will fill 1000 pages if you dare!

 

In the end, I am right. Primitive clerics like Alshaba stifle discussion on social issues that are of importance to the people. I am not a fan of debate over gay rights or same sex marriages. But are you in your frank Sinatra style "all or othing at all" style, saying that there can be no balance between what could be accpeted and what should be stopped?? Even Mahad Ayaanle's Qasido " Taajul culaa" will be listened in closed rooms if the Shabab have they way!

 

You have the ability to oppose Islamic laws, and in return Muslims have the ability to oppose kufr. This is the Sunnah of Allah swt. No magic involved. The best man and ideology will win. And Allah swt already told us the result.

Back to sermons and baalaxoofto, isn't it? I thought we were trying to go outside that box for a while and see if you can give tell me why cruel punishments are justifiable? And why they can not be altered? It looks that old somali adage, "Doqon Ilaahay baratay, lagama gar helo" isn't entirely inaccurate!

[Mr. Somalia]

LFMO @ 'Triumphant Mujahideen'.

 

Who said brainwashing isn't effective on the mentally handicapped...

[Saddiiq]

Abraar,

 

What's the difference between disobeying and "altering" a command? "Altering" is worse. Wanna know why?

 

Why is cutting a hand the silver bullet.

Simple. Once you "alter" a thing, that means it's "alterable". No?

 

You can say we should heed the decree, but to try to provide reason for it is laughable. I prefer Sheikhs who tell me 'that is the word of Allah, Please accept. He knows best!".

Well to begin with, that logic only works with those who accept the Qurans divinity and have certainty in their heart. But that doesn't mean the rest don't deserve an explanation, as long as their questions are sincere.

 

 

And what about the theif who repents? Must he live with perpetual disability for a mistake he might have done in split seconds?

You're mixing two matters. Crime and punishment is a state matter. Repentance is to Allah, not the state. And if the repentance is only on the condition that the punishment not be carried out, then it's not a sincere repentance. You show repentance outwardly by accepting the punishment (because the crime was committed), then not doing it again. The state is not in the business of reading hearts.

 

 

Are the children who will take example of a 'handless and legless man" his too? What will those feel?

If it's about feelings, victims of theft also have feelings. You seem to see it as the poor man taking a bullet for all society, when that's not the case. He's simply being punished for his crime. The difference is, true justice has a more positive & meaningful long term impact on society.

 

 

And why execution is not stopping drug trafficers from going on their business?

Now you're arguing the effectiveness of shariya, which is best done through example. History proves that it is effective when carried out by sincere authorities. This through the eyes of non-Muslims.

 

The Taliban opium ban in 2000/2001 had, there is no doubt, the most profound impact on opium/heroin supply in modern history, as the authors argue. Exogenous global causes can indeed be eliminated as explanations. It was a rare historical moment that allowed almost absolute compliance in the south of the country, with hardly any direct enforcement or punishment required. From the eastern regions, where Taliban control was far from absolute, several cases of disobedience were reported, largely resolved by means of negotiations and pay-offs to local warlords. By harvest time in spring 2001, the effectiveness of the ban was already confirmed beyond any doubt, and astonished the international community at the time. (Major Donors mission, 2001). Bernard Frahi, then head of the office in Pakistan of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, at the time operating under another name but for the purpose of consistency and ease of reading UNODC is used throughout this text), applauded the success of the opium ban: "This is the first time that a country has decided to eliminate in one go - not gradually - these crops on its territory," and called it "one of the most remarkable successes ever" in the UN drug fight.(Transnational Institute, 2001).

 

http://www.tni.org/d etail_page.phtml?pag e=archives_jelsma_ta liban

 

But the Taliban's policy of zero tolerance worked. The streets were safe and cleaned regularly. The police were harsh, but honest. Doors to Afghan homes and cars were left unlocked, without fear of theft. Many warlords stopped fighting. The Taliban maintained a network of community mobilizers who used Koranic verses to shame farmers out of poppy production while also introducing alternative crops.

 

http://www.csmonitor .com/2009/0429/p09s0 1-coop.html

 

 

No matter what deterent you put forth, there will always be those who will commit crimes.

That's why we need laws and law enforcement to begin with. Perfection is an attribute of God. So if human beings can never be perfect as individuals, what makes you think we can ever have perfect crimeless societies? The objectives are to promote accountability for the state and taqwa for the individual. Those are our obligations to Allah swt.

 

 

So are you saying the idea of Mahram is purely for women's security? Why can't the woman take the discretion of deciding whether they are in danger or not?

So what woman would knowingly compromise her life or honor to begin with, if she knows how to avoid it?

 

And will it stop robbers in Jo'burg that a skinny somali is swaggering beside his wife, if they really mean to strike?

It adds difficulty & limits a lot of activities, not just robbery. You only have to use your imagination.

 

 

By the way, is this not defeating your same argument about cutting hands being a strong deterrent. If rapists are to be stonned to death, why need this extra precaution. That ALONE should have done the job of ensuring safety for women, if we go by your logic about the thieves.

Like I said, prevention, not intervention. And again, theft and rape aren't the only issues regarding mahram. You only need to ask women in the west.

 

 

Maybe my statement is false if you take it LITERALLY! But please tell us the list of what is not allowed? I reckon it will fill 1000 pages if you dare!

So when you said they ban tv and internet, you were speaking figuratively? that makes sense to you?

[Sherban Shabeel]

Shariif signed the agreement that took Ethiopians OUT of Somalia. AMISOM was kept as a safeguard in case the former pals would turn against him (and so they did!). Shariif NEVER declared war on his former pals and invited them to share.

 

What the new opposition did was use AMISOM as a pretext to attempt taking down the government. It's not that Shabaab was betrayed by Shariif, it's that Shabaab was (and is) jealous and wanted (and wants) a bigger piece of the pie. Shariif's piece, not the "friend" piece. And it's trying to take it by force.

 

Of course, one day everyone will be dead and there won't be any pie anymore.

[bint hamid]

If it's about feelings, victims of theft also have feelings. You seem to see it as the poor man taking a bullet for all society, when that's not the case. He's simply being punished for his crime. The difference is, true justice has a more positive & meaningful long term impact on society.

salaams.. and nobody really asks the guy who got robbed how he feels about losing the cell phone that he worked really hard for which was his only means of checking on his wife and family..we must feel sad for the robbers since they have no hand but who cares about the victims..Allahu Aalim and na'am al wakeel and He does know best

 

ameen walaykum assalaam

[Abtigiis]

Saddiqui and Bint Hamid, you are not sincere in this debate. I am not talking about setting theives free or imposing a culture of impunity. You are diverting tyhe focus away from what it is: mode of punishment. Can you tell me why a theif who robbed a$15 USD cellphone must lose his hand?

 

Again, on the issue of alterability, Saddiqui you are just telling me what I know. What is wrong with alerting if the basic rules are not breached? That was my question! Punish the theif, change the mode. period.

 

I find your statement about the state not being concerned with reading hearts misleading. I am not saying they should be forgiven. I am saying they should not be punished in a cruel way. It looks we are drifting more into theological debtate,and I think there is no room for more discussion if you take the line of you 'the devout muslim' telling 'the astray one' what is in the holy books.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by bint hamid:

quote:If it's about feelings, victims of theft also have feelings. You seem to see it as the poor man taking a bullet for all society, when that's not the case. He's simply being punished for his crime. The difference is, true justice has a more positive & meaningful long term impact on society.

salaams.. and nobody really asks the guy who got robbed how he feels about losing the cell phone that he worked really hard for which was his only means of checking on his wife and family..we must feel sad for the robbers since they have no hand but who cares about the victims..Allahu Aalim and na'am al wakeel and He does know best

 

ameen walaykum assalaam

Oh boy.

[Saddiiq]

Sherban,

 

Shariif signed the agreement that took Ethiopians OUT of Somalia.

If that's the case, why did they refuse to return to Moqdisho when Sharif and his parliament made the 24 hour emergency call for them to come back. Sharif was offering to negotiate with them since he arrived in Nairobi in Jan 2007, why did it take them 2 years to consider his offer? Could it be something that was happening during those 2 years that persuaded them to look for a way out.

 

 

It's not that Shabaab was betrayed by Shariif, it's that Shabaab was (and is) jealous and wanted (and wants) a bigger piece of the pie.

Listen to yourself. The only territory the man controls is his office desk & you're talking about his pie.

 

Abtigiis,

 

You are diverting tyhe focus away from what it is: mode of punishment. Can you tell me why a theif who robbed a$15 USD cellphone must lose his hand?

You answered your own question. Because he's "a theif who robbed a$15 USD cellphone".

 

What is wrong with alerting if the basic rules are not breached?

There is no "basic rule". There is a command. You breach the command when you don't obey it. Ignore it, alter it, change it, swirl it, twirl it. You can come up with all kinds of fancy words. At the end of the day, you either obey the command, or you disobey the command.

 

I am saying they should not be punished in a cruel way.

And who is better in judgment than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith? Al Maa'ida, 50

[Abtigiis]

Deja Vu'.