SomaliNet Forums

So sad.

waayeel101 wrote:i think what alshabab and other groups doing in this thing most of them are not what Islam says.

Who is more qualified than alshabab and other groups?

sconosciuto wrote:

waayeel101 wrote:i think what alshabab and other groups doing in this thing most of them are not what Islam says.

Who is more qualified than alshabab and other groups?

Hamas, Ikhwan Muslimin in egypt, islamic parties in malaysia and AKP in turkey.

My current janitor as well, he has a degree from azhar.

he is more qualified than alshabab or any of similiar groups.

waayeel101 wrote:

sconosciuto wrote:

waayeel101 wrote:i think what alshabab and other groups doing in this thing most of them are not what Islam says.

Who is more qualified than alshabab and other groups?

Hamas, Ikhwan Muslimin in egypt, islamic parties in malaysia and AKP in turkey.

hamas i understand but ikwan and egypt and the rest are nothing but islamified seculars

AbdiJohnson wrote:It wont come back. You need the Shia and they wont join you under this central authority. Lets not forgot Shias and Sunnis exist in the first place not because of differences in interpretation of the religion but solely over disagreement of who gets to lead the Muslims after the Prophets death. So you can see the irony. And now in 2014, divisions have exploded 100 fold. Umar, Ali, Abu Bakr, Uthman era was the only chance for religious unity and setting up a real and proper authority

I am,

Abdi "You shouldnt of killed Hussein" Johnson

Actually Christianity has 'dozens' of denominations or sects, every movement or group in history does including atheism. Divison is human error. Muslims were advised my Allah not to divide yet they did and still do

Gather around, my children, and let Papa Leftist tell you a tale that will permentaly settle this "debate", not that there was one to begin with.

Once upon a time, kaana yaama kaan, fii qadeem al-zamaan, a muslim ruler, acclaimed by all for his piety and alle-ka-cabsi, found himself wrestling with a vexing question: Chop the hands of the tuugo...or don't chop the hands of the tuugo.

Chop...or no Chop. That is the question.

Ebbe(SWT) very clearly in his muxkam al-tanziil says: "wa'saariqu wa'saariqatu fa'qtacuu aydayihumaa jazaa'an bimaa kasabaa nakaalan minallah"(<--- if you don't understand those words and need a translation of the quranic ayah, then you don't have any business "debating", ee fadlan af-caribaga soo baro.....looking at you, grandpakhalif...at least Ina Subeer is putting in work learning the fundamentals of arabic, adiga maxaa haysaa when you're not fapping to "ad'dacwatu salafiya"?)

But this ruler does not want to chop hands. He knows that if he does, that it will be a grave injustice. And whatever insanity & barbarity others may commit in the name of God & Religion, he does not want to be a thaalim, a tyrannical oppresor of the people he was elected to serve.

So he makes a executive decision: Nope. No chopping hands. Theives steal? No biggie, we'll figure summin out. Waa caadi. Gacmo-jarid laakin ma jirto.

Ilaahay(SWT) says: cut of the hand of the thief; this muslim ruler says: Not this year.

Now, if you were to ask, the "kibaar al-culumaa", they who grow obese on the fat dripping from the payroll of the tyrants, about this muslim ruler who is going against a clear quranic injuction, they would say: "khaarij canil mil'lah, deenta wuu ka baxay. Nacam."

Now, if you were to ask the ignorant Somalinet hordes, they who couldn't icraab a jumla mufeeda if their life depended on it, but who somehow think they are being "good muslims" by blindly following literalist tradition, if you were to ask these masaakiin what they thought of this muslim ruler, they would say: "Waa gaal! Waa murtad. How dare he contradict a clear quranic ayah. This is kufr bawaax"

And in order to understand why these luxuriously-living "grand scholars" would condemn this muslim ruler(loved and respected by all) to gaalnimo, we'll focus on the GrandDaddy of literalistic-puriticanal belief-system in the last 80 years, Ina Baaz, better known as, Samaaxatil Shaykh Al-Calaamah Cabdulcaziiz ibn Baz.

So what was GrandPappy Ina Baaz all about? He was all about literalism, literally. If a hadith pops up tam'bout "it's haram for a slave to runaway from his master"(lolwut), no matter how disgusting, no matter how abhorrent that hadith might be, Homie G Baaz and literalist dogma dictate that you must accept that hadith literally, and if you don't, well, like Homie Shirib put it earlier in the thread, disagreeing = kufr. But if you be like "damn, bro, that hadith be looking mighty suspect, what if it's a fabrication". Then they be like "It's saheeh muslim. you must accept it or be a gaal". Now its clear to me and anybody with two brain cells to rub together that that particular hadith of runanway slaves and a ton of other hadiths are 100% fabrications, but waa ku kaasaa ka dhaadhici these intellectually stunted literalists who believe that if a hadith is somehow "authenticated"(by what, a time machine?) then you are bound to accept it or gaal aas noqotay, burp derp.

Basically, instead of worshiping Ebbe(SWT) who constantly exhorts us to question,to challenge, to reason, to ponder and reflect, these homie-akhis worship the nusoos, the Quran and the Sunnah, and despise and look down upon reason, logic, science, and modernity, because modernity encompasses reason and logic and science. When the TV and radio were invented, they were against it. Sending girls to schools? Haramz, let them stay home and be chaste virgins. Microphone & loudspeaker? "mizmaarun min mazaamir al-shaytaan". Diagnostic sonography? Haramz. Medical Imagery? Haramz. Obeying a fat oil tyrant? totally wajib. Al-Sisi, the butcher of Tahrir Square? totally waliyul amr.

You get the picture. Their regressive stupidity is endless, but perhaps no example can further illustrate the sheer stupidity and maangaabnimo of the Ad'dacwatu salafiya than Ina Baaz himself:

In The Year of our Lord 1966(also the year of Taliye AW252's birth), Ina Baaz said that the sun was orbiting the earth. The Sun. Orbits. The Earth. That's what he said. Yacni, the earth is stationary, and it is the sun that is doing the orbiting. Nacam. After he was corrected by muslim scientists who told him that it was actually the Earth doing the orbiting, and not the sun, he still refused and insisted on his position. Why? Because of the quranic ayah: "wa shamsu tajrii li mustaqarin lahaa". As a literalist, he took the verse literally and anybody who said otherwise is a apostate who hath disbelieved in the Quran(again, this absolutist dogma mirrors what Homie Shirib said earlier in the thread)

Now, looky here, mmkay? I believe that human beings(muslim or not) have the absolute right to believe in khuzacbalaat and khurafaat, should they so choose, mmkay; so if Homie Baaz wants to believe that gravity doesn't exist or that the sun orbits the earth or that mankind never went to the moon, well, that's his right.

But this is where he lost me and I lost any shred of (immense) respect I once had for the man:

"I only deemed it lawful to kill whoever claims that the sun is static (thābita la jāriya) and refuses to repent of this after clarification. This is because denying the circulation of the sun constitutes a denial of Allah (Glorified be He), His Great Book, and His Honorable Messenger. It is well established in the Din (religion of Islam) by way of decisive evidence and Ijma` (consensus) of scholars that whoever denies Allah, His Messenger or His Book is a Kafir (disbeliever) and their blood and wealth become violable. It is the duty of the responsible authority to ask them to repent of this; either they repent or be executed. Thanks to Allah that this issue is not debatable among scholars

Source: Al-Mussawir magazine, Part 3, page 157.

Homie believes he has the (un)lawful right to kill you if you hold a different scientific opinion than he does. So if Ina Baaz believes he has the right to kill people who hold different opinions(scientific truths) than him, what do you think he would do to a muslim ruler who refuses to enforce a clear and explicit quranic commandment. He would call for his death too, amirite?

This is where it gets interesting. So who was this muslim ruler that Ina Baaz would execute for heresy and apostasy?

Well, jaale'yaal, this muslim ruler, who refused to chop-chop hands, was: Al-Farooq, Cumar ibnil Khattab.

*awkward silence*

*more awkward silence*

Long story short: A famine swept across much of the muslim world one year during Cumar's reign, and people started to stealing so that they could feed their families. So Cumar unilaterally prohibited iqaamat had'il sariqa. No hand-chopping. Even tho there was a massive wave of theft and robbery. Still no hand-chopping. Executive order from Al-Faarooq himself. Whatz really gucci doe? Cumar did the exact same thing I'm calling for: No chopping hands, yes even tho it says so in the Quran. And what?

Homie-akhies weren't expected this. Homie-akhis be like "dang, didn't know this filthy leftist had the skillz to dismantle 200 years of literalist dogma"

Go on now. Call Cumar bin Khattab some names while you're at. Call him a "confused kid". Or a "misguided innovator". Or a "westernized modernist". Oh, I forgot, you can't, BECAUSE HE"S CUMAR BIN KHATTAB, MOTHERFAARAX * slo-mo slow-clap*

The supremacy & primacy of al-caql(reason/logic/intellect) when it comes matters that affect the lives and well-being of Muslims, is a forgotten tradition that must be revived, and it is tradition that was practiced by all great Muslim rulers, from Al-Faarooq to his grandson Umar bin CabdilCaziiz to Salaaxildeen Al-Ayoubi, to the howls of the regressive literalists. Another hadith that helps us understand this wise approach is the hadith in Musnad Imam Axmed: Antum aclamu bi umoori dunyaakum( You know best the affairs of your dunya).

Cumar listened to his Ebbe-given intellect, and utilized the Ebbe-designed faculties of reason & logic. And came to the conclusion that it would be pure injustice to punish people for stealing during a famine. Just as anybody with two brain cells to rub together can come to conclusion that is pure injustice to stone people for having hot, sweaty, pleasurable (adulterous) sex.

(Side note: Y u mad doe? Cuz u ain't gettin any? So you want to stone people who are? I mean, akhi, I know you yearn for them good old days, back when you didn't have to have any game, and a fatboy slob like you could hippity-hop down to sooq al-cabeed and purchase yourself a top-of-the-line banging mamasita for like 10,000 dirhams and you would take her home and she wouldn't laugh at your neck rolls, or belly rolls, or pathetic performance, because you know, she's your slave. But them "good old days" are long gone, akhi, and mankind the world over recognizes slavery for the immoral abomination that it is, regardless of your "pure beliefs".)

Listen here, akhi: We're hardwired to have sex, adultery or no adultery. If Nabi Yuusuf(calayhi salaam) came *this close* to boinking his employer's wife and committing adultery, where does that leave the rest of us? Some genius is gonna come running and say that Nabi Yuusuf wasn't muxsan(hadn't married) so he wasn't about to commit adultery, only fornication. <--- shows how the literalist mind works, always bogged down in technicalities.

So no, my dear epically stupid homie-akhis, the hudood WILL be abolished, whether you like it or not. Slavery, which I'm sure you yearn for, has been permanently abolished, and it's only a matter of time before the same happens to chop-chop and stone-stone.

Again: Ebbe(SWT) said very clearly: cut off the hand of the theif
Umar bin Khattab said: Not this year.

So simple, yet so utterly complicated for ignorant minds to comprehend.

If stoning and hand-chopping are negatively affecting the lives of Muslims(and it is, without question) , then guess what akhi, stoning and hand-chopping are going out the window. Case closed. Are your feelings hurt? Do you feel that your world-view is collapsing? Well, go to a shrink or a imam and fix that on your time and on your dime, baby boy,.....but there will be abso-effin-lutely no hand-chopping or slavery or stoning, just so that you, O over-fed welfare-raised identity-crisis facing homie-akhi, can feel better about Islam. Islam is greater than you and your twisted and contorted literalism that has turned the lives of Muslims the world over into a living hell. 1000 years from now, while the rest of the world is building skyscrapers on Mars, your decedants, yaa akhi al-salafi, will be holding conventions and wrestling over the following :
- is the niqab wajib?
- is the beard wajib?
- Is the quran makhlooq or ghayru makhlooq
- Can I buy a slave, and if i can, can I have sex with her anytime I want? If she runs away from me, will her prayer be accepted?
- Can a woman travel without a Muhram? Does she lose "virtue points" if she does?
- Did Istiwaa calal carsh happen metaphorically or literally? Can I pray behind someone who claims it happened metaphorically? Can i eat his food?

At a time that the Muslim world is facing entrenched and complex problems that require nuanced judgment and innovative solutions, only those suffering from compounded ignorance and a reluctance to use their Ebbe-given intellect will turn to literalism..... at least untill the literalist phenomena rots away into oblivion, inshallah very soon.

But wait, homie-akhi, since you are so enamoured of lopping off limbs and blunt force trauma.....how about I dig a hole 'bout yey-high, put you in it, and starting dhagaxeeyin you....you know, for science's sake. What's that? Did you say you haven't committed adultery so you can't be stoned? Well, homie-akhi, all I need to do is come up with 4 witnesses, and it's a done deal. Oh now you've changed your mind once you see how your "perfect system of deterrence" can so easily be used against you even though you are innocent? So now you don't believe in stoning people to death for having sexual intercourse, right?

Wrong. Stupid people have always existed undeterred by factual evidence and the march of time. Dinosaurs? burp never existed. Why? Not in the quran & hadith. But fossils? derp created by za yahuud to introduce doubt in our minds herp.

As the wise men of reddit put it: Stupid will stupid. Always.

Nice long story but you're not tricking anyone homie and you're being intellectually dishonest.

If you were in a deserted island or there was a famine, you would be allowed to eat pork. You would be allowed to drink alcohol because there aren't any other options. Similarly if there is wide spread poverty and people cannot support themselves you wouldn't get your hand cut off for stealing. Cumar ibn Khattab said no to cutting off hands because of a famine and circumstances that were present. You on the other hand are declaring change it all together. Refuse the Quran regardless of the Quran. Again our book will not be changed, and you are of no authority to try and say what is morally correct or incorrect.

Stupid will always be stupid, but I think you might be taking the trophy here. Your idea is far more dangerous than any of the nut jobs that are actually doing the stoning.

Shirib,

This discussion would be so surreal if it wasn't so hypocritical: Shirib, a graduate of a Public Ivy(U-Dub) and employee of a Fortune 100 company enjoying all benefits of a modern liberal society when he would be denigrated and discriminated against as a "jareer" in 100% Islamic Somalia or deported as a "cabd" in 100% Islamic Saudi Arabia, and actually believes in stoning people to death for having sex or cutting off the hands of a theif who steals. Not only does he believe in it, but he calls anybody who doesn't believe in it a gaal. He supports laws he wouldn't live under, merely so that he can have his precious "ideological purity".

Again, it would be so surreal, if it wasn't so disgustingly hypocritical.

Shirib, straight question: Do you believe slavery should be practiced today? If you say no, I'll expect a detailed reason why, not the one-liners you're famous for. Also, per your logic, if you do not believe that slavery should be practiced today, then you have committed kufr because slavery is mentioned numerous time in the quran and various "saheeh" hadith, including a sahih hadith that says a runaway slave's prayer would not be accepted. So, hypothetically speaking, if one of your ancestors ran away from his masters seeking that instinctive human hunger for freedom, then his prayer would not be accepted. <---- Come on now...let's see you defend that, homie-akhi.

So go on, homie, gacmo-jarid xaga naga dhig bal, let's see if you believe in slavery, an interesting question considering your ancestry(no offense intended, honestly). Let's see if your "ideological purity" is so "pure" that you would support the enslavement of your great-great-great-grandfather, and that if said great-great-great-grandfather ran away, you, Homie Shirib, would help capture him and bring him back to his rightful master, according the (disgusting) literalist shareecah you believe in, right?

This gonna be gud.

Leftist, your arguing for the complete abolishment of edicts in verified Saheeh hadith like stoning and Qur'anic commands (chopping hands).

Umar bin Khattab (RA) temporarily suspended it, but what you did not know the reason Umar (ra) did not cut the hand during famine is because there is a hadith in which the Prophet (saw) says that there is no hand cutting during famine, so the general rule is to cut the hand of the theif (if all the conditions are met) but an exception to this rule is during famine, not necessarily the whole discussion of Maqasid.

Grandpa,

You are mistaken on many levels:

- There is no hadith that says "no hands should be chopped during famine". Cumar reached that conclusion on his own, using the tools that you lot hate so much: reason, logic, and intellect. <--- All which can be summed up as Al-Caql. Throughout our Islamic history, there has been a civil war between those who insist on a blind following of the nusoos(ina taymiya, ina wahaab) and those who insist on utilizing Al-caql in interpreting and understanding those nusoos. I fall in the latter category; you fall in the former.

- I have no problem if the hudood are applied on the rich, the powerful, and the elite. What I do have a f-king problem with is seeing the hudood applied exclusively on the innocent, the poor, and the illiterate......this makes me a very unhappy and displeased akhi, hence my strong, contemptuous and insulting language, and if in order to get that to stop, we have to abolish the hudood in totality.....so be it.

I'm sorry, but laws that are only applied on the poor, the weak, and the dispossessed are going to be abolished. And if we muslims don't do it. It will be done for us. We spent centuries tolerating the rampant evils of slavery, until cadaan beoble forced us to end slavery. Allow dhowr the people of Grant and James Dahl, abolitionists in the Americas, Europe, and Britain, who had the decency that we lacked, and the morality that we lacked, and ended up forcing us to ban and abolish slavery, even though if you ask any "grand scholar" today he will tell you that slavery is "xalaal ilaa qiyaam al-sacaaca"(herp burp). Here's a shameful historical fact: The British imperialist strong-armed the khaleeji salafists into abolishing slavery. I can provide you with irrefutable evidence but it will be a waste of time because you are locked in a "grand narrative of superiority". But the reality is that the "evil cadaan beoble" abolished slavery(while they still continued to practice imperialism) 200 years ago, while you and your shuyookh support slavery today. You support forcibly raping the Yazidi women that ISIS captured because they are "maa malakat aymanukum". You support the enslavement of children. All because some bumfuq "shaykh" says so. Sorry, bro. Don't nobody got time for that nonsense. We're living in the Year of our Ebbe(SWT) 2014, and you will either join it willingly, or be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

And just as slavery was abolished, so too will chop-chop and stone-stone be abolished, my akhi. If you think that chopping the hands of po' folk, and stoning to death lovers is Islam, then you have a woefully twisted understanding of Islam.

Grandpa,

You are mistaken on many levels:

- There is no hadith that says "no hands should be chopped during famine". Cumar reached that conclusion on his own, using the tools that you lot hate so much: reason, logic, and intellect. <--- All which can be summed up as Al-Caql. Throughout our Islamic history, there has been a civil war between those who insist on a blind following of the nusoos(ina taymiya, ina wahaab) and those who insist on utilizing Al-caql in interpreting and understanding those nusoos. I fall in the latter category; you fall in the former.

- I have no problem if the hudood are applied on the rich, the powerful, and the elite. What I do have a f-king problem with is seeing the hudood applied exclusively on the innocent, the poor, and the illiterate......this makes me a very unhappy and displeased akhi, hence my strong, contemptuous and insulting language, and if in order to get that to stop, we have to abolish the hudood in totality.....so be it.

I'm sorry, but laws that are only applied on the poor, the weak, and the dispossessed are going to be abolished. And if we muslims don't do it. It will be done for us. We spent centuries tolerating the rampant evils of slavery, until cadaan beoble forced us to end slavery. Allow dhowr the people of Grant and James Dahl, abolitionists in the Americas, Europe, and Britain, who had the decency that we lacked, and the morality that we lacked, and ended up forcing us to ban and abolish slavery, even though if you ask any "grand scholar" today he will tell you that slavery is "xalaal ilaa qiyaam al-sacaaca"(herp burp). Here's a shameful historical fact: The British imperialist strong-armed the khaleeji salafists into abolishing slavery. I can provide you with irrefutable evidence but it will be a waste of time because you are locked in a "grand narrative of superiority". But the reality is that the "evil cadaan beoble" abolished slavery(while they still continued to practice imperialism) 200 years ago, while you and your shuyookh support slavery today. You support forcibly raping the Yazidi women that ISIS captured because they are "maa malakat aymanukum". You support the enslavement of children. All because some bumfuq "shaykh" says so. Sorry, bro. Don't nobody got time for that nonsense. We're living in the Year of our Ebbe(SWT) 2014, and you will either join it willingly, or be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

And just as slavery was abolished, so too will chop-chop and stone-stone be abolished, my akhi. If you think that chopping the hands of po' folk, and stoning to death lovers is Islam, then you have a woefully twisted understanding of Islam.

Leftist,

I don't think that slavery should be practiced today and the reason I don't think so is because Islam always advocated for the freeing slaves and was working towards the freedom of slaves. Islam did not outright abolish slavery, but it did work to abolish it. Quran doesn't tell Muslims to get slaves, it tells them to free slaves on several occasions. Since we have achieved that today there is no need to go back to it.

Amputation of hands is in the Quran. You will not change it today, you will not change it tomorrow, you will never change it. Changing it is kufr (I didn't call you gaal, but trying to change Allah's word is kufr). Our book will not go like the yahuud and nasaara, where you decide to change things cause Leftist thinks he's enlightened all of a sudden.

Laws have parameters and they should be followed, but saying forget the law all together, Allah's word is outdated and we will no longer abide by his clear law is kufr. Who do you think you are? Do you know the graveness of what you are preaching? Today it's let's not cut off hands. Tomorrow is why should we fast? The point is to attain taqwa, we don't need to leave food and water to do that.

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Guys this discussion would be more beneficial if we left the ad hominems and personal attacks out.