Shayk Dr. Abdullaah al-Jarboo on Somalia

[Thierry.]

This is an interesting topic I listened to earlier, it is regarding the call of Somali youths in North America to join Al Shabaab.

 

http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=X-FsX_HhP pg&feature=related

[unknown01]

Have listened before but it's more about refuting Imam Awlaqi

 

When the kuffar speak then the Muslims will also speak.

 

May Allaah guide me and them.

[Thierry.]

^What did you think of the subject

[Fabregas]

^^ You do know the folks at Salafitalki.net, their like minded sites and the SOMALI maktabda.com would have viewed the resistance against the Ethiopian occupation as a "fitna". Anyone who supported it, including you thierry and Sheikh Shariff, would have been labelled as khariji or rebellious, deviant individual. According to them, the ruler can call in Xabashis to colonise and occupy Somalia, so long as he doesn't openly say he is doing it for purposes against Islam. If there were not saying that, they would say, "yeah, the Xabashi occupation was Unislamic, but the Muslims were to weak to defend against it due their situation and not having an emir to command".So I would take anything coming from those folks with regards to SOmalia with a pinch salt. Perhaps if the masses had obeyed them Ethiopia would still have garrisons all across Somali cities.

 

 

Of course, their position is far more consistent and can be reasoned with, unlike those scholars( and solers) with selective Islamic memories, who suddenly forget that it was only yesterday they opposed the Ethiopian, AMISOM and the TFG. And today, bizzarely, it is a dowlatul Islamayiyah all because a couple of former sheikhs shaved their beards and joined the secular government :confused:

 

That said, the Sheikh is correct with regards to saying that laymen individuals should not have the right to carry out certain punishments and make rulings which only the people of knowledge and those in power should indulge and rule upon. This caused a fitna in certain countries.

 

Fabregas

 

ps. Algerians didn't fight over power as the sheikh said. The Islamists won the election legitmately but the secular government denied it and started a war with the help of western governments.

[Thierry.]

As for your first Paragraph they would have been right I and President Sharif (although one can say he not me was under pressure to unite with his group) were wrong not push the peace and negotiation agenda with Yusuf’s government. However President Sharif being a human acknowledged his error and started negotiation with Yusuf government for over a year, he wasn’t a Munafiq then but now that he is President he is a Murtad in one corner and Munafiq in another.

 

Do you think this war against the Government is just and that officials and those that support the Government are Murtads, saxiib no more standing on the fence join Al Shabaab ideology wholeheartedly like Kashafa and Brother LX

 

Ps Saxiib this government has promised to implement Shariah but even if they don’t there is no justification to take arms against them.

[Fabregas]

^^ I wasn't referring to the mere peace talks, rather I was referring to their whole take on the conflict in 2006. They said it was a fitna and the ICU were a group of rebels; you said it was a legitimate resistance and that the warlords were traitors for bringing Xabashis to MOG and beyond. Now you are agreeing with their stance on the Somali conflict( ie. there are rebellious khariji challenging authority) all because a man you support has occupied the seat of the previous head of that regime. When did the deen change for men?

 

 

With regards to the issue of Munafiq and Murtad, again, akhi: let us not play ignorant. I think you fully well know why he is being called those words and it has nothing to do with for simply entering into peace talks. No real Muslim would call another Muslim a munafiq or murtad for simply entering into talks with an enemy, as this would be similar to how the Khawarij made takfir on ALI(RA). Perhaps if you truly believe this to be the case, then I suggest you read the prohibition in the beginning of Surah Mumtahinah, the ayats in Surah Maidah and then read Nawaqid Al Islam by Sheikh Muhamad Ibn Abdul Wahab. The matter will become clear.

 

As for your last paragraph:NO! I don't believe the war against the Somali government is just. The reason for this is because Somalia hasn't had any government for 20 years and there is no legitimate authority today. Thus How can I believe in war against a government that doesn't exist? Also from an Islamic perspective, a government has to be chosen by the people of knowledge(not the UN or secular warlords btw), establish authority over a territory to govern and rule by Islam. Do the Somali warlords satifs any of these criterion?

 

However, If you mean by government the secular warlords who killed and uprooted thousands of Somalis for over a decade and were brought to MOG by Ethios, who are know being protected by Christian African Forces in a few blocks, then why is it not just that Somalis can liberate themselves from them as they did in 2006? Perhaps you or Dr Al Jarboo will say it is prohibited in Islam for Somalis to defend themselves against the brothers below who are preparing a major conquest in MOG once Ramadan is over:

 

No, By Allah, what is prohibited is those who defend and support those thugs and call them protectors.

 

As for your last comment: TAKFIR is a part of Islam. Infact Islam would be dead without it for every action would be accepted like how Christianity became when Paul, the Roman agent, hijacked it. It is also the believe of the murji'a that Iman doesn't decline or decrease with actions. A person can commit kufr and leave the fold of Islam even if he prays and fasts. SO To call someone or a leader a murtad is not "Alshabab ideology" as you put it. Many Ulema have performed takfir on rulers from the days of Yusuf Hajaj, to Saddam Hussein to Abdullahi Yusuf. This is not Khariji or Takfiri so long as the person has daleel and he is not calling the person this due to a minor or great sin which doesn't make one leave the fold of Islam as the Khawarij did. If he is uses the evidence wrongly then he has merely done itjihad and the other scholars should correct him . If he performs takfir without having knowledge of the affair or fundamentals of takfir then he is sinning. But calling someone a murtad is not against Islam in and of itself. Nor does it make the person a keligis Muslim,unless of course we are saying Somalis are free from actions of kufr.

 

Personally, I do believe it is kufr to ally oneself with Xabashis and AMNISOM with the intent of establishing a secular government and destroying sharia governance. Shariff use to believe this also this too. Was he a khawarij or was he following Alshabab ideology in 2006? I can literaly quote hundreds of Islamic Scholars who believe making wilaya with kufar against Muslims removes one from the fold of Islam. Will we say they are all khawarij or keligis Muslim? Didn't the major Somali Scholars make takfir on those who allied with Xabashis in 2007? Are they keligis Muslim too now that it is Shariff who is allied with Xabashis in Beledweyn? Were Sayid Muhamad or Sheikh Ahmed Shakir( egyptian sheikh) khawarij for making takfir on Egyptians and Somalis who allied with the colonialists? Walahi, one classical scholar said it it kufr to even support them from the mouth or with a pen. So why are we deluding ourself to believe that this is something Kashafa and LX plucked it out from thin air?

 

Returning to my personal opnion, since some people seem to be so interested in it:

 

I wouldn't go as far as Shababs and other groups and say every single person who does this(ally with gaalo) is a kafir who should be executed with a metal blade. I can't remember the scholars name, but one of the great Scholars said a Muslim is not necessarily a disbeliever if he is drawn by zeal and makes wala with the combatant disbelievers. Imam Shafici and I think Ibn Al Qayyim also differed with the other scholars on the famous hadith of Hatib and they said the spy is not necessarily an apostate if he does it for wordly reasons and not out of hatred for Islam.

 

Likewise, I don't believe it is necessary to rush into the takfir of an uneducated Somali youth who is enlisted by his clanm, who brainwish him to believe that his tribe is under attack or someone who just wants a bit of cash. Or there can be money other reasons which a person can be excused from this takfir( like if the person was compelled or if a greater fitan would happen due to making takfir on them). I believe they should educated, rehabiltated and sent back to their tribes. But this affair( ie. making takfir) is not for every laymen. It is for the people of knowledge and the scholars who can analyse the situation of every individual concerned.

 

Another point to bear in mind is that a Muslim can be fought and he doesn't have to be labelled a murtad. One can be fought for their fitna like those who disturb the peace and set up checkpoints all across the land. Or those who cause a heresy or fitna like the Jahamiyah or philosophers. ALi didn't even make Takfir on some of the Khawarij yet he still fought them. I hope you get my drift.

 

That said, as an illiterate laymen of Islam, I see no shame or stigma in Somali groups resisting those who brought Xabashis to Somalia and are still crying for further foreign forces to occupy Somalia. And Those who took part in the Ethio occupation, raped women, allowed them to occupy masjid , kidnapped and sold ducat, set up roadblocks and killed thousands over the last decade and destroyed the shariat courts. Are these not the people who fill the positions of what you refer to as a government? Since when did they became angels?

 

Now, if some sheikh joins them on their terms, then he is part of parcel of their fitna and badil. He is one of them. He has joined the caravan of dulm. In reference to the yahud and Nasara, Allah swt says they will never be pleased with you unless you become of their milah and compromise to their Aqeedah. This trick was tried on the Prophet Muhamad(SAw), but Allah guided him and he told the Quraish he would not compromise even if they gave him the moon, etc etc.

 

So ask yourself: why are the Xabashis, Somali Atheists, Liberals, Somali seculars who hate the Sharica and hudood of Allah all of a sudden in love with Shariff.?Is it because they grew their beards, allowed him to rule by what Allah revealed and removed their forces from Somalia and stop killing Muslim Somalis? Or is the other away round and he is their loyal servant, who is mimicking them both in appereance and Aqeedah? Walahi, if I am correct and it is indeed the latter, then every Muslim should seek refuge from this. May Allah guide him and all of us! Ameen

 

 

ps. we will continue this discussion after Eid. eid mubarak bro. cafwan for any harsh words inshallah.

[Thierry.]

Of matter of faith lets go back to the original source of knowledge the Quran and Sunnah, personal opinion on matters of such importance do not come in to play when it comes to the noble Faith of Islam. Either we follow the faith wholeheartedly in accordance to the way the companions and the three pious generations followed it or we are at risk of falling into Bida’a. There is no middle ground or cut of point. You have written a long piece yet we still don’t know what you adhere to

 

Fabre

^^ I wasn't referring to the mere peace talks, rather I was referring to their whole take on the conflict in 2006. They said it was a fitna and the ICU were a group of rebels; you said it was a legitimate resistance and that the warlords were traitors for bringing Xabashis to MOG and beyond. Now you are agreeing with their stance on the Somali conflict( ie. there are rebellious khariji challenging authority) all because a man you support has occupied the seat of the previous head of that regime. When did the deen change for men?

It was a fitna, if opposing the previous government instead negotiating with them was Nasiixa then we would not be in this ongoing conflict.

My position on Al Shabaab is very simple I am not upon what they are upon, it has nothing to do with who the President of Somalia is, I opposed their ideology and methodology before Sh Sharif became president and I will oppose it long after he leaves office.

 

 

Fabre

With regards to the issue of Munafiq and Murtad, again, akhi: let us not play ignorant. I think you fully well know why he is being called those words and it has nothing to do with for simply entering into peace talks. No real Muslim would call another Muslim a munafiq or murtad for simply entering into talks with an enemy, as this would be similar to how the Khawarij made takfir on ALI(RA). Perhaps if you truly believe this to be the case, then I suggest you read the prohibition in the beginning of Surah Mumtahinah, the ayats in Surah Maidah and then read Nawaqid Al Islam by Sheikh Muhamad Ibn Abdul Wahab. The matter will become clear.

My Friend I suggest you go and read the statements made by the group you support when the negotiations were on going, there are articles in this forum clearly stating their rejection of Sharif and Aweys when they where in Asmara.

 

Fabre

As for your last comment: TAKFIR is a part of Islam. Infact Islam would be dead without it for every action would be accepted like how Christianity became when Paul, the Roman agent, hijacked it. It is also the believe of the murji'a that Iman doesn't decline or decrease with actions. A person can commit kufr and leave the fold of Islam even if he prays and fasts. SO To call someone or a leader a murtad is not "Alshabab ideology" as you put it. Many Ulema have performed takfir on rulers from the days of Yusuf Hajaj, to Saddam Hussein to Abdullahi Yusuf. This is not Khariji or Takfiri so long as the person has daleel and he is not calling the person this due to a minor or great sin which doesn't make one leave the fold of Islam as the Khawarij did. If he is uses the evidence wrongly then he has merely done itjihad and the other scholars should correct him . If he performs takfir without having knowledge of the affair or fundamentals of takfir then he is sinning. But calling someone a murtad is not against Islam in and of itself. Nor does it make the person a keligis Muslim,unless of course we are saying Somalis are free from actions of kufr. Personally, I do believe it is kufr to ally oneself with Xabashis and AMNISOM with the intent of establishing a secular government and destroying sharia governance. Shariff use to believe this also this too. Was he a khawarij or was he following Alshabab ideology in 2006? I can literaly quote hundreds of Islamic Scholars who believe making wilaya with kufar against Muslims removes one from the fold of Islam. Will we say they are all khawarij or keligis Muslim? Didn't the major Somali Scholars make takfir on those who allied with Xabashis in 2007? Are they keligis Muslim too now that it is Shariff who is allied with Xabashis in Beledweyn? Were Sayid Muhamad or Sheikh Ahmed Shakir( egyptian sheikh) khawarij for making takfir on Egyptians and Somalis who allied with the colonialists? Walahi, one classical scholar said it it kufr to even support them from the mouth or with a pen. So why are we deluding ourself to believe that this is something Kashafa and LX plucked it out from thin air?

This is when we go back to the Quran and Sunnah to clarify the matter for us, you or my personal opinion on a ruling of such magnitude is a none starter. We shall use the opinion of the Quran & Sunnah and the way the pious predecors understood such matters. The view of the majority of Scholars especially the ones from Baghdad (centre of Scholarship) at the time on Hajjaj ibn Yusuf is very clear he was a wrong doer (Taghut) not a Kafir. They urged the Ummah not to revolt against him by using the beautiful Hadeeth of (saw) when asked about by the Sahābah what to do when they (the rulers) go beyond their boundaries ", they should be obeyed even if the oppress you unless you see Kufr-Buwah."

 

This is the view of our noble scholar Shaykh Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaanee (ra)

 

We bear witness that Al-Hajaaj was an evildoer, an oppressor. However, we do not know from him that he rejected any of those aspects from the Religion, which one is required to know by necessity. Therefore, it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever just on the basis that he used to commit evil, oppress others and kill innocent Muslims. Like wise there was no strong grounds to oppose A. Yusuf and S Hussein

 

First lets clarify what Apostasy is, then the actions that needs to be taken

 

Ar ridda (apostasy) is: disbelief after Islaam. It can be through statement, action,i’tiqaad (belief) and doubt. So whoever: 1) makes shirk with Allaah or 2) rejects His ruboobeyah (Lordship) or His wahdaaniyah (Oneness) or 3) (rejects) an Attribute from amongst His Attributes or 4) (rejects) some of His Books or His Messengers or 5) insults/reviles Allaah or His Messenger (sal Allaahu alaiyhi wa sallam) or 6) (rejects) anything from those forbidden matters, whose forbidden nature is agreed upon or who seeks to make (that thing) permissible or 7) rejects the obligation of a pillar from amongst the five pillars of Islaam or has a doubt about the obligation of this (pillar) or 8) (who doubts) the truthfulness of Muhammad (sal Allaahu alaiyhi wa sallam) or any of the other Prophets or 9) (who doubts) the Resurrection after Death or 10) who prostrates to an idol or a star or anything like that - then indeed he has committed kufr (disbelief) and apostatised from the religion of Islaam.

 

Permanent Committee for Research and Verdicts Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz

Shaykh `Abdullah bin Ghudayaan

Shaykh `Abdullaah bin Qu`ood

Shaykh `Abdur-Razzaaq al-`Afeefee Question 2 from fatwa no: 7150 P 8 Volume Two Fatawa of the Standing Committee

 

Saxiib there is no middle ground if a person has committed any of the acts above then we should follow (now this refers to the average layman)

 

For a person whose kufr is firmly established, it is obligatory to have the belief of his kufr (i.e. that he is upon kufr), and to pass the ruling upon him according to this and for the Muslim ruler to establish the punishment of apostasy upon him - providing that this person has not repented. And whoever does not declare the person whose disbelief is firmly established to be a disbeliever – then he himself is a disbeliever. (The exception is) if he has some doubt about that (person’s disbelief) – and then it is obligatory to try to remove that. And with Allaah is the tawfeeq. And may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet, Muhammad and upon his family and Companions.

Permanent Committee for Research and Verdicts Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz

Shaykh `Abdullah bin Ghudayaan

Shaykh `Abdullaah bin Qu`ood

Shaykh `Abdur-Razzaaq al-`Afeefee Question 2 from fatwa number 6201 P142 Volume 2 of the fatawa of the Permanent Committee

 

If you do not have evidence of Sh Sharif being a Kafir and yet you still call for revolt and war against his government then:

 

This is the madhab of the Khawaarij. When an individual holds it permissible to revolt against the Muslim rulers, and more severe than that is to declare them to be disbelievers. This is the madhab of the Khawaarij .

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan

 

Fabre

As for your last paragraph:NO! I don't believe the war against the Somali government is just. The reason for this is because Somalia hasn't had any government for 20 years and there is no legitimate authority today. Thus How can I believe in war against a government that doesn't exist? Also from an Islamic perspective, a government has to be chosen by the people of knowledge(not the UN or secular warlords btw), establish authority over a territory to govern and rule by Islam. Do the Somali warlords satifs any of these criterion?

Who selected Muawiya into the position power, who selected preceding Khalifs of the Ummayids with the exception of Abdul Aziz ibn Umar (ra), which Ulema selected the Abbasids, the Ottomans, House of Saud, Jamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Saddat, Husni Mubarak. Which council of Muftis selected Omar bashir, Are these men and their governments not real states for their path to rulership did not come through a scholastic selection. No to you they are praise worthy Noble tribal leaders of Arab and Cushities and all Somali governments are non existent.

No one is perfect adeer Somalia is infested with warlords but that is a fact we have to live with and work around, not fight illogically

 

 

Fabre

Another point to bear in mind is that a Muslim can be fought and he doesn't have to be labelled a murtad. One can be fought for their fitna like those who disturb the peace and set up checkpoints all across the land. Or those who cause a heresy or fitna like the Jahamiyah or philosophers. ALi didn't even make Takfir on some of the Khawarij yet he still fought them. I hope you get my drift.

This what the Dr of the topic is alluding to, not every tom, dick and harry can fight, it has to go through the right channels otherwise instead of preventing fitnah it is increasing it, Ali (ra) was the government, hence he fought those that caused fitnah, like wise the government of Somalia should deal with matters of check points, if they are weak then one should aid them. The reason Somali is in its current status Quo is because the, the layman, clan and groups have taken the responsibility of governing on to them selves, no leadership, no order and certainly no Jamaaca. Unless you tell me a kid who blows himself up in Beledweyne is preventing fitnah.

 

Fabre

That said, as an illiterate laymen of Islam, I see no shame or stigma in Somali groups resisting those who brought Xabashis to Somalia and are still crying for further foreign forces to occupy Somalia. And Those who took part in the Ethio occupation, raped women, allowed them to occupy masjid , kidnapped and sold ducat, set up roadblocks and killed thousands over the last decade and destroyed the shariat courts. Are these not the people who fill the positions of what you refer to as a government? Since when did they became angels?

Now, if some sheikh joins them on their terms, then he is part of parcel of their fitna and badil. He is one of them. He has joined the caravan of dulm. In reference to the yahud and Nasara, Allah swt says they will never be pleased with you unless you become of their milah and compromise to their Aqeedah. This trick was tried on the Prophet Muhamad(SAw), but Allah guided him and he told the Quraish he would not compromise even if they gave him the moon, etc etc.

DO not let emotions cloud your judgement saxiib, for every action has a reaction. I am sure you are smart enough not to believe those men you refer to (some bad I agree) did not let Ethiopia or AMISOM walk into Somalia in vain. Someone forced their hand, Someone boxed the Sufis in a corner by attacking their bases forcing them to call for what ever aid they could get. The same group has besieged the government. Now during university they taught me to solve problems in the right chronological order otherwise you wont solve anything.

 

As for the second paragraph brother I hope it is out of ignorance rather than jest that you compare Quraish offer of worldly pleasures to the Prophet (saw) in return for him to associate partners With Allah, to Sharif being offered Premiership or accepting to negotiate with the former TFG. Rather Pres Sharif example is even lesser than that of the Truce of Hudaybia in that his negotiation was between to groups of Muslim at conflict.

 

 

There is absolutely no ground to oppose this government and those who do are only prolonging the misery of Somalis, and the irony is once they get in power another group more extreme will come and oppose their view.

 

 

Eid Mubarak saxiib

[Haatu]

Dear Mr Fabregas,

 

Leave the brothers at salafitalk & maktabada alone as they are apon xaq and the way of the prophet and the salafi saalixuun. I now fully believe the battle against the ethiopians was a fitna. Let's not be carried away nationalism as i once was, falciyaadu billaah. The sites that you bad mouthed are reccomended by knowledgeable men such as Xassan Soomaalii (known as the most knowledgeable man in Europe by the Culimaa). Brother if you live in London, I sincerely advise you to go to Cranford Mosque in Hounslow, west london. Akhii there you will find people upon the sunnah as it should be. Ikhwaan know that only the khalifa of a UNITED muslim khalifate can call for Jihad. Until Allah blesses us with one, with have to be patient and wait for the nasr of Allah Subxaana Watacaalah. Ikhwaan seek knowledge before we align ourselves with religious groups as their is a lot of deviating in the Ummah. I advise all of us to got to Damaaj in Yemen to study the deen. This is a reminder to myself then to you.

[unknown01]

^I'm not nationalist alhamdulilah

but in that site they refute shuyuukh like Muhammad Saalix Munajjid. there are several kind of salafis these days. One like munajjid and the other refute him. They refute sayyid Qutb and come up with Question and answers by shuyuukh but never come up with an article from Shaykh Jibreen rahimahullaah

[unknown01]

Muslim support for the oppressed

What is the ruling regarding joining in physical assistance of the Muslim brothers in Chechnya?

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about this topic and he said:

 

“Whoever can help them with himself or his wealth, then let him do so.”

 

And Allaah knows best..

 

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him)

[unknown01]

La xawla wala quwatta illa billah. Look how this member in salafitalk are like.

http://www.salafital k.net/st/viewmessage s.cfm?Forum=9&Topic= 3736

 

This is how other salafis are like. They attack Ibn Jibreen rahimahullah because he defended Quth Rahimahullah. Wasn't Ibn Jibreen the senior scholars who issued fatawaas along with Fawzan(May Allaah guide him and me)

 

http://www.allaahuak bar.net/jamaat-e-isl aami/banna/refutatio n_of_shaikh_ibn_jibr een.htm

[Haatu]

Akhii, i don't speak for the individual members on the site but they are on the sunnah. It is not for the common person to refute any1 but for the culimaa.

[unknown01]

^so you mean others are on the path of misguidance.

 

brother/sister these people you support never criticise what the americans are doing in iraq rather they criticize what the mujahideen are doing in Iraq instead.

I hope my brothers and sisters especially somali sisters are careful when criticising mujahideen like Amir Khattab rahimahullah.

[Jibreel]

Originally posted by *hatu*:

I now fully believe the battle against the ethiopians was a fitna.

Hatu,if today u were with ur family and i came along and forced every one in the family to acknowledge me as the master of the house,would u allow ur self to be my slave? Would ur intellect as a human being digest that humiliation and hence serve me? No my dear u wouldn't. U would have tirelessly with out remorse try to resist me and that in a word is called 'self defence'.

 

Now consider this;If an individual has the right to defend himself,what of a nation? Do answer me.

 

 

Now back to the essence of the discussion.The Prophet of Allah left the Ummah with the Qur'an and the Sunnah and not with sect x or sect K.Are u still with me?

 

As for Dr. Jarboo i totally agree with him on the regards that fulflling the rulings of huduud need an authority and that a grave danger would surely come out if every one was to intrude and blame his neighbour for some mistake and hence take action but that again is common sense innit?

 

Eid Mubarak and have a blessed day.

 

Wabillahi towfiiq,

 

Jibreel.

[Fabregas]

Originally posted by *hatu*:

Dear Mr Fabregas,

 

Leave the brothers at salafitalk & maktabada alone as they are apon xaq and the way of the prophet and the salafi saalixuun. I now fully believe the battle against the ethiopians was a fitna. Let's not be carried away nationalism as i once was, falciyaadu billaah. The sites that you bad mouthed are reccomended by knowledgeable men such as Xassan Soomaalii (known as the most knowledgeable man in Europe by the Culimaa). Brother if you live in London, I sincerely advise you to go to Cranford Mosque in Hounslow, west london. Akhii there you will find people upon the sunnah as it should be. Ikhwaan know that only the khalifa of a

UNITED muslim khalifate can call for Jihad. Until Allah blesses us with one, with have to be patient and wait for the nasr of Allah Subxaana Watacaalah. Ikhwaan seek knowledge before we align ourselves with religious groups as their is a lot of deviating in the Ummah. I advise all of us to got to Damaaj in Yemen to study the deen. This is a reminder to myself then to you.

Bro, I think you are mistaking legitimate disagreement and debate with badmouthing. I don't see where I badmouthed any of those brothers. I'll glady take their opinion if they bring forth the evidences and strong reasoning. Secondly, that it was a fitna( the resistance to Xabashis in Muqdisho) as you state requires powerful evidence. Statements like ," fulan and his mates" are on the xaq or someone endorsed fulan with being the, " most knowledgeable man in Europe" are simply opinions and not facts Islam doesn't allow blindfollowing or taking someones opinion in such urgent matters of the deen, especially when lives were at stake and people were on the brink of extermination. As the saying goes: we love the shaykh and the truth when they agree. But if they disagree it is the truth which comes first

 

As for the issue of needing a holy Caliph to carry out the obligation of defending yourself in your own house(ie.land), which is a recognised Islamic, Human and even

, then I say: this has absolutely no basis in Islamic law.

 

Allah said:

 

“March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allaah. This is better for you, if you but knew”

 

 

"And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." (4:75)

 

And:

 

“A sanction is given to those who, because they have suffered outrages, have taken up arms; and verily, God is well able to succour them: Those who have been driven forth from their homes wrongfully, only because they say ‘Our Lord is God.’ And if God had not repelled some men by others, cloisters, and churches, and oratories, and mosques, wherein the name of God is ever commemorated, would surely have been destroyed. And him who helpeth God will God surely help: For God is right Strong, Mighty.” (22:40-41)

 

 

Nowehere does is say that there needs to exist a holy caliph for a believer in Allah to defend himself from killed, oppressed, raped, tortured and colonised. In fact, he doesn't even need to ask the permission of his parents. It is also worth pointing out that it wouldn't logically be possible anyway since a slave can't have kingdom. How can there be a caliph when all the lands are overtaken and your are not free? The first thing a coloniser would do is remove the leadership and appoint his own puppets. So the question is: Should the Muslims in the Ocaden or Kashmir, for example, wait for a messiah/caliph and be " patient" or should they excercise their Islamic and Internationally recognised right and defend themselves?

 

 

This what the Ulema have said:

 

"Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer

 

(8/15):

When jihad becomes inevitable because the enemy has overrun one of the (Muslim) regions, then it becomes obligatory for all the people of that region to mobilize and to go out to fight, whether they are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), each according to his abilities, with or without the permission of his parents. No one who is able to go out, warrior or helper, should stay behind. If the people of that country are unable to fight their enemy, then those in nearby and neighbouring countries have to go out to fight, in whatever numbers are required to show support, so that they will know that they have the strength to stand up to them and ward them off. Similarly everyone who knows of their weakness in the face of their enemies and knows that he can go and help them must also go out and fight. All of the Muslims should be united against their enemies. If the people of the area where the enemy has invaded and occupied fight off the enemy themselves, then the others are relieved of that duty. If the enemy approaches the Muslim lands but does not enter, the Muslims must still go out to confront them so that the religion of Allaah will prevail and in order to protect the Muslim homeland and humiliate the enemy. There is no scholarly dispute on this point.

 

 

And Ibn Baz said:

 

" The Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Africa, North Africa and elsewhere are obliged to do their utmost, and if there is a jihad in one country, the surrounding countries should hasten to help them, the closest then the next closest. If one or two states, or three or more, manage to fulfil the obligation, then the rest are freed of responsibility. They deserve to be supported, and it is obligatory to help them against their enemies, because they are oppressed........... "..

 

 

And he also said about the palestinians,

 

"............ This is because they are oppressed by the Jews, and that which is obligatory upon them is to protect their religion and themselves and their families and children and to drive out their enemy from their land with all they are able to of strength."

 

 

And we all know the stances of Ulema like Uthaymeen, Ibn Jibreen, Ibn Baz, Muqdbil(may Allah have mercy upon all of them) on various places such as Bosnia,Palestine and other many other lands. Where they causing a fitna when they urged Muslims to defend themselves? Furthermore, Did they say that the Muslims in those lands need to wait for a caliph and in the meantime they should " patiently" get slaughtered like sheep? And would it have been more or less of a fitan if Southern SOmalia became like the Ocaden region, and Somalis all patiently endured their occupation until the holy Caliph delivered them?I will leave the answers for you!

 

 

SOurces:

 

http://www.islamqa.c om/en/ref/34830

http://www.islamqa.c om/en/ref/20214

http://abdurrahman.o rg/

 

( I am quoting at length because what was understood by the early Muslims and those that followed them has become contested and people needs scholars to clarify things which were known by necessity.)

 

Thierry, thanks for the reply bro. I think there is still alot of misunderstanding and I believe what you are saying can't apply to current context. Reply coming soon Inshallah.

 

NOTE: we are not condoning attacking innocents or terrorism. if any people are taking notes.