somali society can't afford to have thieves in these times..

[ModerateMuslim]

shabab al-mujahideen should be applauded for carrying out the prescribed punishments of allah swt in these tough and crucial times in somalia. and allah swt has promised to greatly reward those who carry out his prescribed punishments.

what the somali people need the most in these tough times are law and order. and that's exactly what shabab al-mujahideen - and may allah swt reward them for it - are providing; so unlike the criminal and parasite warlords and munafiq politicians who, instead of providing security, are looting the poor somalis themselves.

theft is an evil corruption that's no end. imagine what happens to a family, barely struggling to get by, when a greedy person takes away their livelihood - have you ever thought about that? who'll feed and house them? are you willing to sent them money instead of crying about the barbarity of allah's law? are you? no, right? then you've no right to question allah's law and those who are carrying it out. but most of all, allah's mercy and wisdom should never be questioned by the creation; the people who say that allah's law is barbaric will forever inhabit the lowest level of hell.

maybe if we were a rich society then the families/people, whose livelihood is taking away by the greedy thieves, would forgive them; as they - those whom the thieves steal from - are the only ones who can forgive them, not the gov or anyone else. but somalia isn't rich and the victims want justice and those in charge, no matter who they may be, must carry out the prescribed punishments of allah swt. even the prophet saw wasn't free from this; and yes, umar ibn al-khattab too had to carry out the law of allah swt and did so.

and btw, those who steal for food are not punished like those who steal out of greed; they don't get their hands cut off because, to have your hand chopped deservedly, the value of what you steal must meet a certain amount, which is higher than the value of mere food.

[ModerateMuslim]

and the myth of those secularists who lie upon umar (ra) and say he refused to carry out the law of allah swt is just that - a vicious lie and a myth......

Did ‘Umar call for a moratorium?

The question in fact should be: Does ‘Umar have the right to call for a moratorium on any aspect of Shariah? Does the Prophet have the right to place a moratorium? When one glances at the Prophetic narrations with respect to the application of Hudud amongst the early Muslims, it becomes clear that the right of legislation was exclusively maintained for Allah alone, and why would it be otherwise, when that is considered the twin-half of faith? To quote one example, once a companion caught a thief and brought him to the Prophet. When the Prophet ordered the Hadd of theft to be applied to him, the companion pitied the thief and decided to forgive him, but the Prophet in response rebuked the companion for not pardoning the thief before he came to him, for when a case reaches the ruler, then there is no alternative but the application of the Hadd punishment. The Prophetic traditions tell us of incidents where the Prophet would intercede on behalf of the murderer with the victim’s family to spare the murderer from the act of retribution (Qisas), but never did he have the right to prevent any family from demanding and carrying out retribution, and this is in spite of him being the Messenger of Allah. Therefore, if even the Prophet himself did not have the right to call for the suspension of the Hudud, how can anyone besides him be given that right? For the same reason, how can it be thought of a righteous Caliph like ‘Umar to call for a cessation of the Hudud for which he has no authority?

Nevertheless, the secularists often cite the incident when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second righteous Caliph, supposedly suspended the punishment for stealing in the year of famine. They claim that since theft became so rampant at that time that Caliph Umar saw it befitting to lift the Hadd punishment on stealing altogether, as opposed to leaving half of the nation amputees.

In response, we can confidently say that ‘Umar’s moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to ‘Umar, he ordered that the thieves’ hands be cut – in the very year of the famine – and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, ‘Umar only applied the principle of ‘avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor’, very much in line with ‘the letter’ as reported from the Prophet: ‘avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases’. For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband’s wealth, since a portion of the man’s wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, ‘Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility.

[Ka darag]

how about u summarise that??

[ModerateMuslim]

how about u summarise that??

what happened to your random thread?

[Ka darag]

how about u summarise that??

what happened to your random thread?

It's still there

[ModerateMuslim]

It's still there

then post this randomness there.

[Ka darag]

It's still there

then post this randomness there.

HAVE FUN IN UR THREAD..