Haa Seefta Abu Ayyoub, Mayya Seefta Alshabaab

[xiinfaniin]

Abu Ayyoub Al ansari was not only a patron of Muhammad (scw), he also was the one who hosted the messenger close to seven months when Muhammad arrived the city of Medinah, or Yathrib as the Arabs knew it then. That he lodged Muhammad (swc) was not the only honor he achieved though. Of Abu Ayyoub it was said, that he never missed a military mission to defend the word of Allah. From battle to battle, Abu Ayyoub drifted from the barren Sahara of the gulf and penetrated deep into Marsha land of Iraq, and onward to frontal trenches of the Byzantine Empire. During the siege of Constantinople, the seat of Christian Byzantine, Abu Ayyoub was among the prominent military men enlisted in Yazid’s army. By then he was an old man and shortly after engaging the enemy Abu Ayyoub fell ill and withdrew from the battle. Yazid fully appreciative of the position of the man and his sheer battle experience visited him and asked him: “ do you need anything, Abu Ayyoub?”

Abu Ayyoub, did not shirk from making a remarkable request:

"Abu Ayyub urges you to penetrate deeply into the territory of the enemy as far as you can go, that you should carry him with you and that you should bury him under your feet at the walls of Constantinople." He uttered these words as he gasped his last breath.

 

Muslim fighters had done exactly what their elder brother requested, and Abu Ayyoub was buried at the gates of Constantinople. After the fall of Contatantinople, a mosque was constructed upon near Abu Ayyoub’s grave to give especial significance to his final resting place. When the Othaman Empire was born, it was the preference of Islamic Khalifs to have their inaugural ceremony be performed on Abu Ayyoub’s burial grounds. In that context, the honor given to Abu Ayoub’s courage was quite fitting in its symbolic rituals. Even reportedly Islamic Caliphate leaders used to embrace a puppet sword named Seefta Abu Ayyoub to feign bravery and decisiveness.

 

What propelled Abu Ayyoub to such immense victory was the vision of Islamic unity he was able to articulate not by rousing speeches of his, but by his deeds. An Arab Muslim from the heart of Sahara was able to persist till victory was achieved for the larger community that’s bound not by blood, but by more deeper, and nobler concept, Islam. But his sacrifices came after his deep understanding of this religion and what it truly means in its communal harmony and social cohesiveness. He knew Muslims civil rights, to use a word that falls way short of capturing the true meaning of xaqul Muslim calal Muslim .

 

This is not rhetoric yaa jammaacah.

 

Watch Abu Ayyoub speak as he narrates what he remembers of the many words of wisdom he collected from his friend and beloved messenger, Muhammad (scw).

 

Allah's Apostle said, "It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first”

 

In otherwords, Muslims (ponder this jammaacah) are supposed to talk to each other, especially when they angry with each other. That’s the correct approach. Such was Abu Ayyoubs understanding.

 

what would you reckon then the measure of a group who when a fellow Muslim reaches out and publicly vouches for the soundness of the political creed he so gladly desires to reflect, demands reconcilation to heal the wounds of civil war , and opens the door for an eqautable sharing , when such group, the target of such beutiful gestures, reject it outright, what would you think their measure would be?

 

Abu Ayyoub, the companinon, the brave man who fought all the way to the walls of Byzentine Empire and died trying, was no Alshabaab.

 

Abu Ayyoub’s sword, and not that borrowed, aimlessly swirling Alshabaab sword, is what we should desire.

[xiinfaniin]

Oodweyne,

 

You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the current political climate as far as Somalia is concern. These sorts of beautified historical analogies may not resonate with the battle hardened alshabaab youth who view, as you eluded, the current political outcome in Somalia as the fruits of their military campaigns, and not as a mere milestone of larger effort as many of us judge. But it’s that very lack of appreciation for the complexity of Somali conflict from their part that I was trying to massage when I hastily (it was late in the night, and did not give the attention it warranted as apparent in its quality or lack thereof) penned this post. Truth of the matter is that this group needs to learn from past history.

 

Before I go any further I shall make it clear that you are wrong on your assessment on Sh. Sharif. If you accuse him gullibility, the man has shown you and all who doubt his ability to tread with care on the un-chattered political waters of marrying strategic political objectives to revive Somali republic with the necessary tactical appeasements to give measured consideration to the forces whose sphere of influence Somalia, and Somalis to a larger extent, falls today. He might have looked naive and unsophisticated, but beneath his humble posture lie a keen appreciation of the murky Somali matters that few have thus far become capable of. Add that to his decorum and self-worth, and all the right qualities that benignly restore the equilibrium---all the reasons one needs to rightly lionize Sh. Sharif. I am not sure if it’s because of capable advisers and judicious counselors of his that always steer him to the right direction and help him occupy both the intellectual and moral summit of Somali affairs, but the fact is he does it indeed with remarkable consistency. On the issue of negotiating with other parts, he early on saw the value of talking to his opponents. On the issue of Shariah and its implementation, again he made it clear, at the beginning when he came to the fore of Somali politics in the capacity of Courts leader, that force will never be a legitimate means to implement Shariah, and that it will always be a gradual process. Today, when many doubted his ability to build coalition that could convert his public pronouncements to policy agenda, he again succeeded. How else can one explain a secular prime minister, at least by training, successfully passing a ministerial resolution accepting Islamic Shariah? I could go on and on giving example after example as to how good Sh. Sharif maneuvered with marked brilliancy and without slightest friction to cruise onward with his peace agenda. That, my friend, is not the act of a gullible man. Man on a mission is what I think it shows.

 

Lets come back to the story of Abu Ayyoub and his famous sword. It’s a great story in many ways and one can draw many lessons from it. For one, it shows that for one to succeed one needs to be consistent and patient to achieve greatness in the real sense of the word. For the other, it’s story of a man who was passionate for achieving victory and who chose riding on the front end of Islam’s just sword so to say as a means to fulfill it. But his love to fight was significantly different than the love today’s Jihadi movements claim. His was one of understanding priorities of the time and what it demanded from him. In the military campaigns he participated he was representing a unified Islamic community that wanted to defend its rights, and fence off aggressing empires of the time. His was also a community that had the organs of the state and harmony within members, he was not waging a jihadi war in the midst of warring clans each fighting for primacy.

Abu Ayyoub also was a man of understanding. I already cited one of the most beneficial narrations in our collective Islamic hadith literature this man contributed. It’s the hadith that marks the boundaries of the mucaamalah among Muslims. It’s that combination of having the passion to advance the Islamic cause as well as having a deep understanding as to how Muslims treat each other that I found most fascinating.

 

Alshabaab’s bravery in the battlefields as widely reported is a quality worthy of praise. There is a parallel in Abu Ayyoub’s focus on the matters of war and that of Alshabaab. But where the similarity ends is their divergent take on the mucaamalah among Muslims, especially when the said Muslims disagree as Abu Ayyoub’s hadith explicitly refers.

That lack of understanding and appreciation is what will spell Alshabaab’s disintegration, and ultimate demise, I am afraid. We hope however the final conclusion of alshabaab story will not be a one that ends in disappointment. To avoid such tragedy, Abu Ayyoub’s story offers perfect modality for alshabaab to safe face, and survive within Sharif’s political framework. Student of Islamic history will instantly note the name Yazid ibn Muawiyah and the political complexity it entails. Recall Yazid was the commander of the military campaign in which Abu Ayyoub died.

[Paragon]

Xiin, thanks for the first post. Very enlightening.

[Kashafa]

Excellent topic, Xiin. If you had made an effort to explain your political position through the lenses of the Sunnah and the Seerah, rather than the hantataca of Dimuqraasiya, fowr-bointi-fife, peace caravan and Shaykh-Hotel-is my-personal-Saviour,he-can-do-no-wrong, you would've achieved much more respect and clarity. Maanta aa nin oday camal oo hadashay, instead of the newly-ilbax Flight 13 western wannabe oo isku-dhi-dhi-jinaayo Gharbiga(just like Shaykh Hotel). Have you noticed that Shaykh Hotel has never referenced Islam, Shareeca, Xukm-ul-Allah, or any other Islamic terminology ever since he started courting Westeren support uptill his election ? I thought you were on the same path, but hadeeba aa Abo Ayoub Al-Ansaari uu soo qaadatay daleel, ninyahow, xoogaa oo khayr aa weli kugu jiro, you still have hope, waana ku daawaynaynaa(dh ? or d ? meaning cure, not watch) adiga iyo xertaada oo sidaada oo kele oo jiran, inshallah.

 

That said, your posting is replete with errors in understanding and in contextualizing the lessons to be learned from Abu Ayyoub Al-Ansaari and his era of Islamic history.

 

Hal su'uaal ka jawaab. Hal Su'aal which will bring down the flimsy house of Is-Qancis and Jah-wareer that you have erected both here in this thread and in your overall mind-set(which has lead you to become a Xabashi servant, wittingly or unwittingly).

 

That question is: What was the position of Aboo Ayoub Al-Ansaari during the Fitnah that engulfed the Muslim Ummah in the aftermath of the assassination of Uthaman ? Mowqifkee boo istaagay ? How did he gauge the so-called 'complexity' ? When many high-ranking Companions decided to sit down and abandon the Xaq, what did Mainest Man Al-Ansaari do ? Just as his sword flashed across the faces of Kufaari Quraysh in Badr and Uxud, did not his famous sword fall upon the necks of fellow Muslims, many of them reputable Companions of the Prophet, in the battle of Jamal and Sifayn ? Questions, yaa Ustaad, that are begging for answers. Fahal min mujeeb ?

 

Keep this in mind as you search for that answer: Your peacenik Shaykh Gacamay, he who has always counseled surrender and submission to the Taghoots of this world, also had a choice to make and a position to stake out during the Ethiopian invasion and occupation. Here's the hint: His cowardly stand was antithetical to the stand of Abi Ayoub and his thoroughbred brethen. He chose to sit down in the mosques of Bosaaso and preach about xayd, nifaas, and sifatul Salaalah, as Ethiopian soldiers were shitting in Masaajids and slaughtering scholars. Falaa naamat acyunal jubanaa. May the eyes of cowards never find rest in sleep. Abo Ayoub Al-Ansaari was no coward. Nor was he a craven slave that cowered before the Taaghoots of this world.

 

Context is king, abti, and you have failed that cashar quite miserably. Penning a beautiful post(the description of the Muslim successes on the battlefield was very evocative) that reminisces about the glories of yesteryear and name-dropping the Companions of the Prophet, that is just not enough to shore up a weak and crumbling argument. Weakness that is transparent from miles away. No wonder you stick to your fowr-bointi-fife, 'peace-and-stability', 'peace-in-our-time' talking points

 

Ironically(it seems our peaceniks, just like our dhabqoodis are unable to grasp irony), were Abo Ayoub Al-Ansaari alive today, he would be the first to wage war on Sharif Ahmed and bas.turd entity he leads. With his true and tried sword in his blessed right, he would lead the charge against the Munaafiqeen iyo Kufaar oo isku-bahaystay ladagaalanka Deen-ta Ebbe. Aboo Ayoub Al-Ansaari would not have shaken hands, pledged his allegiance and undying support and friendship, and grinned like the village i.diot with the malcoon who has made it his life's work to destroy Islam in the Horn of Africa. Aboo Ayoub Al-Ansaari would not have allowed to be transported like a monkey in a cage by the very same mercenaries whose hands are still wet with the blood of those they have killed and destroyed.

 

Seefta Aboo Ayoub Al-Ansaari is the inherited legacy of Ummada Soomliyeed oo Xalaasha. And it is the sayf we will wield against all enemies, both external and internal. Just as Al-Ansaari raised his sword against those who came out against the Xaq, even if they were Muslims, even if they were Companions.

 

Abo Ayoub Al-Asnaari personified the verse: Laa takh'uthkum fiillahi lowmat laa'im. Throughout his life, from the time Prophet of Islam knelt his camel at his doorstep, till his martyrdom decades later at the gates of Constantinpole, he never ceased once to follow the Xaq and support it,wherever it took him. He did not cower. He did not flinch. He did not Is-Qancis. He did not sell his Deen for Dunyaa. He did not sit at the feet of Sultans and give them fatwas-4-$ale. Kal'laa Walaah.

 

He was a thoroughbred. And thorougbreds don't fold.

 

Raximallahu Abaa Ayoub Al-Ansaari, fa'wallah caasha xameedan waa maata shaheedan waa saar macal Xaq'qi xaythu kaan.

 

Wa lil xadeethi baqqiyah. Intaan bal soo digest-garay, su'aashayda kana soo jawaab.

[Fabregas]

That question is: What was the position of Aboo Ayoub Al-Ansaari during the Fitnah that engulfed the Muslim Ummah in the aftermath of the assassination of Uthaman ? Mowqifkee boo istaagay ? How did he gauge the so-called 'complexity' ? When many high-ranking Companions decided to sit down and abandon the Xaq, what did Mainest Man Al-Ansaari do ? Just as his sword flashed across the faces of Kufaari Quraysh in Badr and Uxud, did not his famous sword fall upon the necks of fellow Muslims, many of them reputable Companions of the Prophet, in the battle of Jamal and Sifayn ? Questions, yaa Ustaad, that are begging for answers. Fahal min mujeeb ?

 

where are you going with this one, kashow? I hope you're not likening the fitna between the companions to the wars between them and the Quraish mushrikeen, bro.

[Kashafa]

^^ No, bro. I'm not saying that all. I am merely clarifying that just as Abo Ayoub fought on the side of Prophet against Quraysh because of the Xaq(the truth of Islam), he also fought on the side of Ali because the Xaq was with Ali. I am saying nothing bad against the Companions who fought against Ali. It is their understanding(ta'weel) that led them to take up arms against Ali in both the battles of Jamal and Sifayn. They later recognised their wrogndoing and many of them cried bitter tears of regret for their mistake.

 

Xiin seems to be saying that just because somebody says he's Muslim, you can't fight him. I proved his claim false using his own analogy, that of the hero of Islam, Abo Ayoub Al-Ansaari. It's not only a patently fraudulent claim, but a ridiculous one as well. What, if Shakh Sharif and all the so-called scholars gather together and proclaim in a fatwa that more peacekeeping solider are needed and that country is not ripe for Shareeca, we're supposed to follow them and not fight against them, because they happen to be Muslim ? Ay brah, do I look like a fool to you ?

 

Lol, I have no problem with them being Muslim. That's none of my business. What is my business is their actions. And it is their actions that damns them. And it is their actions they will have to answer to.

[Kashafa]

Something that I hope clarifies this even further.

 

Abdullah bin Umar bin Khattab, son of the Caliph, and one of the Companions held in the highest regard(high enough that many wanted him to be Caliph after Umar's assassination) was asked upon his deathbed: Do you have any regrets in life ?

 

He replied(paraphrasing): "Wallahi, I was one of the earliest to embrace Islam and I have accompanied the Prophet in ease and hardship, so Ilaahay khayr aa rajeynaa, the only thing I regret is not standing up with Ali and fighting by his side. Because the Xaq was with Ali. And by abandoning Ali, I abandoned the Xaq. That is my only regret"

 

Ibn Cumar, along with Sa'ad bin Abi Waqaas and Saceed bin Jubair, and many other companions, were among those who chose to do 'incizaal' during the fitnah, siding with none of the warring parties and not leaving their homes except for prayer. They later came to realise this was a grave mistake. They thought they were avoiding fitnah, but in effect, by not supporting the Xaq, they enabled a bigger fitnah: the end of the Caliphate and the beginning of hereditary rule.

 

Raximallahu Ibn Cumar, he was a great example for sincerity and truth-speaking even as death beckons.

 

Barafasoor G, Where does the Xaq lie in Somalia today ? Does it lie with Shakyh Hotel and fowr-bointi-fife ? With Nur Cadde and Qaybdiid ? With Scholars-4-Dollar$ ? With Pissland and ********** ?

 

Where, abti, where ? Once you have the ability to discern the Xaq, then you must summon up the strength and ability to follow it.

 

'Cuz you can best believe it ain't gon be easy.

 

And in strict accordance with Sunnatallahi fil Ardh: Following the Xaq is never easy.

[Gabbal]

Enlightening discussion. I look forward to Xiin's response to Kashafa's earlier post.

[AYOUB]

^ In my humble and layman opinion, Kash has so far made a better argument than Xiin especially in his response to Abu Diaby. Xiin's is - conveniently as ever - forgetting his caravan is being defended by Museveni's sword not "Abu Ayoub's".

 

Kashafa has however still not given the reasons as to why "his side" refuses at least "to talk" with Sh. Sharif's. Would Kashafa accept the replacement of Museveni's sword with The Sudan's Al-bashiir's or any other neutral foreign sword? Since the clerics seem divided, how does his "sword" seek to get mandate of the Somali people? He also has not given as how some of the killings - like the warning-less car bombings of innocence and unarmed people - could be justified under "Abu Ayoub's sword standard" context.

 

PS Abu Ayoub (RA), no relations.

[NGONGE]

Kashafa is talking a good talk there. But, as Ayuub said, since they have not at least sat down and 'tried' to talk Sh. Sharif out of whatever 'wrong' they think he is doing, they really can not talk about fitna, abu ayuub or abu qasacad. The funny thing here is that the same applies exactly to Xiin and the man he supports. When you hear Sh. Aweys quoting what he heard in the news to condemn Sh. Sharif, you know that neither man has even tried to talk directly to the other. What was it that Kashafa said? Oh yes! ACTION

 

They are both as wrong as each other and until one of them (as the hadith that Xiin quoted says) makes the first move, none of you should be supporting either side.

[xiinfaniin]

Kashafa, first welcome back. Jumce wanaagsan too.

 

Secondly, the position of Abu Ayyoub in the wars of fitnah between the companions is immaterial to the argument I am making here. And with all the fuss you made in your post, whatever Abu Ayyoub has done in the xuruubul fitnah, he has remained true to the concept of Muslim brotherhood when he accepted the subsequent agreements to end the war. Unlike you and Al shabaabs, the man understood the value of Musaalaxah between Muslims. Proof: after the agreement was reached and the war was ended, he did not sit on the sidelines nursing past grievances. He did not hold grudges against Mucaawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyaan, the victor of the war. Instead, Abu Ayyoub gladly joined and supported the state and its leader. The fact that he enlisted with Yazid’s army proves his deep understanding of the priorities of the time. Note we are talking about Yazid Inb Mucaawiyyah of all the people, a man surrounded with great controversy as I hope you know. Unlike you and alshabaab, the man, Abu Ayyoub that is, had scholars he respected and whose words he considered without calling them culumaa for sale, as you did. Unlike you and alshabaab, the man appreciated the sacredness of Muslim blood, and I reject your insinuation that Abu Ayyoub took Muslim lives lightly during those wars of fitnah.

 

If you want to debate about the nature of Somali conflict, and whether Sh. Sharif has done enough to earn the support of his opponents that will be a better argument than justifying your current position by, in essence, saying Abu Ayyoub ba xuruubtu cali iyo mucaawiyye buu ka qayb galay. Deceitfully hiding his courage afterwards to move on, hs courage to tend to the affairs of the Ummah, and above all his courage to enlist for its defense under the same man whom he fought fiercely against him, Mucaawiyye. Waryee do you see the point there or you want to continue dramatizing, drawing false analogies, and painting Abu Ayyoub an small man whose ijtihaad during fitnah wars overshadow the khaatimah xazanah his life was fortunate to end with? Alas, waxaan maqli jirey ninkii qalab buris ka lihi, wax walba duqsi buu moodaa. Cakku Kashafa iyo caqligiisa.

 

One more thing yaa Kashka: the fact you resorted to talk about xuruubul fitnah (a controversial topic of which far learned men in religion and Islamic history chose to forgo the urge to comment) shows that you really miss the point of Abu Ayyoub’s legacy adeer.

 

Seeftii Abu Ayyoub, represented Islam. Alshabaab’s Seef represents ignorance, and as a result is unguided one. It does more harm than good. My side of Somali divide made the first move by calling the scholars of the land, seeking their advice and counsel to end the civil war. My side of Somali divide calls for reconciliation day in and day out, a concept your ignorant, and deviant side openly ridicules. My side of Somali divide desires to lead the nation with all its political segments. Yours ya Kashka want to destroy it, unwittingly. Yours lack priorities. The Takfiiri inclinations you espouse are apparent to us. Thanks Allah the scholars whose innocent words were abused used to be taken out of context and used to justify to shed Muslim blood in our ardhi are actively engaged today in finding a solution. One side is accepting their counsel. The other side, your side, disrespects them and calls them names. What I am trying to say is if it’s a question of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, the authority made a decision. Support Sh. Sharif. If it’s a question of politics and appealing to the masses, your failure is clear of all that cares to discern.

 

The story of Abu Ayyoub is a beautiful one. Soiling it with a wicked reference to the xuruubul fitnah in an effort to depict him a man less than I originally painted him is Kashafa talk.

[xiinfaniin]

NG,

You really disappoint me there. What do you mean by first move? Are you deaf or blind? Do you not follow the news? When a man invites his opponents, calls scholars to mediate, and goes public with his peace agenda, what do you call it? Does it have a name waryee? I mean cant you just once and for all repress this timidity of yours and call things with their names awoowe?

 

Hear it now. It’s called initiation of peace. It’s a courageous move toward achieving peace. If you are still uncomfortable with the small pains of this teething peace, you are fullay . Even good Oodweyne would agree with me on this.

[NGONGE]

^^ I believed all of this until I read Sh. Aweys's condemnation of the new Somali president and his admittance that he got information from the media, saaxib. If Sh. Sharif can not make a phone call to his old buddy (and don't tell me he does not have the phone number of the hotel now) he probably did not get in touch with anyone else either. Making declarations in the media and not following them through by contacting his foes (who he could easily get in touch with on the phone) does not look to me like someone who is genuine in these calls of his (or, as I have been telling you since forever, shows him to be a very gullible man).

 

Are we going to argue over this simple fact, saaxib?

 

Of course if this was Abdullahi Yusuf, I would be right behind him and respect this so called 'initiation of peace'! But this is not AY. This Sh. Sharif and his current opponents are his former bed buddies. He has no excuse for not contacting them directly, saaxib. NONE.

 

If he has time for photo ops with injured soldiers, he must have time for contact with his foes. I see no peace here, Xiin (from either side but I can't blame the others just yet).

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Are we going to argue over this simple fact, saaxib?

 

No, we should not argue over a simple fact. That simple fact is good Sharif reached out, and got rebuffed. To show that he is a serious man meaning to bridge the differences that existed before and after his rise to power, he invited different scholars to mediate and intercede. It’s noteworthy that some of the scholars invited, Sh. Umul included, held contrary views to Sharif’s political approach and said so even as he was preparing to contest in the Jabbuuti election.

 

So it’s a simple fact. Sharif made the move, and continues to insist that dialogue is far better a tool to end the Somali conflict.

 

As for Al shabaabs, awoowe, we love the youth for they are ours to lose. But they are wrong, and their strategy has been shown wanting. Sh. Omer Faruq has once been quoted saying about youth in general, Nin hooyadi irmaantahay, talo lamo weydiiyyo. And I reluctantly agree .

[Fabregas]

Kasha;

 

 

firstly, you should provide the sources for the words you attribute to Ibnu Cumar. I say that becuase there are many political and deviant groups who attribute words to the companions and exaggerate claims in order to satisfy their hawa. I am not saying that you are guilty of that, however, one should be careful of these things, because it is a delicate issue, as xiin pointed out.

 

 

Secondly, the fact that some companions did not take part in the fitna, which is what it was, according to the consensus of ahlul sunnah, is considered a virtous act by many Ulema and historians of Islam. Our position is that we do not take positions between them and glorify the striking of swords between muslims, let alone the companions, may allah be pleased with them all.

 

Could you imagine if all the companions took part in the fitna, and everyone one them held deep,unmovable, ideological positions, similar to the ones you seem to be holding, ya?

 

Imagine if Abu Huraira took part in the fitna, and his sword struck the neck of Aishah, umul mumineen. What would be the impact on this deen, if the greatest narrators of ahadith died killing each other? Consider the fact the some groups already curse aisha as a slut and a whore, whilst some refuse to take hadith from Abu Huraira, for various reasons. Do you know how many deviated groups have been led astray and took extreme aqeedah beliefs because of the fitna between the companions?

 

 

With regards to your question concerning xaq: both groups( in Somalia) have their flaws as well as their good attributes. Personally, I don't like the manner in which the jibouti process came about and the way it incorprated the thugs of the tfg warlords. Yet, the costs of destroying that system annd replacing it with another one are, indeed, large and costly. It simply means the continuation of the somali civil war, only this time bringing in the icu faction and the shababs on the other side.

 

For sure, we don't like animsom, but is it worth firing a mortar at two soldiers, whilst they kill a 100 Somalis in return. Is this xaq, sxb? Have the ulema, who you label as scholars for dollars, not said that amnisom stay is unjust? When did they become scholars for dollars for this?Where they not the same Ulema who gave the fatwa against the Xabashis and warlords?

 

Yet, they do not see the purpose in attacking them African forces, when they will suffer minimum casualties and many Somalis will be forced to flee from their own homes, left to sleep in the trees and bleed to death without medical aid. They do not see the purpose of perpetual warfare against SHariff, a religous mean, who can no no doubt muster up support from other religous men. Should their opnion not be respected or at least disagreed with in a civil manner, ya? If Sheikh Umal is a scholar for dollar, there are scholars left.

 

What worth is the xaq if it is enforced on the bodies and skulls of the innocents and other Somali Muslims? What worth is sharica if there are no inhabitants left in that forsaken city? What worth is it if there are religous wars all over the South and our ulema are pitted against each other? Did not the prophet Muhamd refuse to kill Abdullah ibn Salool because he feared it would be said that Muhamad kills his companions? Today, galadu waxay raban, to pit the wadads against each other, so that it is said sharica and Islam are violent and not capable of bringing solutions to the ummah.What is the worth of attempting to remove Somaliland and PL if it leads to thousands of Somali civilians fleeing major cities and foreign powers coming to the aid of these regimes? Have you thought about that. Or is the xaw enforced no matter what the consequences are and no matter the capabilities of the Muslims?

 

 

A muslim general is said to have once uttered the great words, " the blood of one muslim is greater to me than any city captured from the disbelievers".

Therefore, my point is that, as the people of the sunnah, if the actions of enforcing the "xaq" leads to a greater evil, then that action is postponed and alternatives are sort, however much the alternative may be against our desires and bravado.