Captain24 wrote:Kolombo wrote:I've merely pointed out your double-standards & hypocrisy in selecting these types of threads. If the question was posed by a neutral, non-TFG supporter, I would have given them a worthy response. But when it is asked in a mocking fashion to poke fun at Al-shabaab by two-faced individuals who worship their clans & have demonstrated unpatriotic characteristics in the past, I will call them out for what they are. Ama ka gubta, ama ka ooya, I will call a spade when I see one.
Al-shabaab has never claimed responsibility for this video, it was never posted on their website. Where's any evidence to proof it was indeed them? Why re-post an old clip again & again?
The TFG never claimed to be responsible for the atrocities committed against the civilians, are we going to turn blind eye? Also a lot of people who never supported the TFG replied to this topic, including Demure, Advo and Voltage to name a few
Don't you dare misuse my name when nothing I have said agrees with you and nor is our motive the same.
Koronto is right about you, Rebel, Somali_boqor, and the number of hypocrites walking around in our midst. The reservations I bring to the topic DO NOT concern Al Shabaab while you and the rest of your hypocrites gang of hoodlums are using this to make a political point.
My reservations dealt with two things:
1. Al Shabaab never took responsibility for their actions. I track Somali current events every single day, even weekends, I take a couple minutes out to make my rounds of the of a number of diverse news sources, include the Islamist websites of Kataaib and Qaadisiya, to see what every single group is reporting. I have come across many punishments Al Shabaab carried out that was reported by their own sites as well as others, but do not remember a single instance coming across Al Shabaab claiming to have been behind the killing in this video. As such, we only get this video from a Christian site and in it are a rag-tag gang of hoodlums who could very well be not affiliated with Al Shabaab at all but an extension of Somalia's destructive environment since the inception of the civil war. I made a valuable point where I pointed out that the people in question have a civil war history of torture and barbarism. People captured in those areas even in the beginning of the civil war, including a maternal relative of mine, used to be killed by being nailed to boards and dumped in hot oil. If al Shabaab existed then, had those culprites covered their faces and taped themselves one could easily make the argument, such as you hypocrites, that it was "al Shabaab" behind it.
On this my instance is that, Al Shabaab has never been one to be shy about their actions whether it was the stonning of the woman they accused of adultery or the killed of Waldiire whom they accused of spying for the Ethiopians, or any other person. Understand I am not saying it is not them. I understand it could very well be them potentially but the reality is until I have confirmation it is the Al Shabaab organization behind this, I will not conclusively label them the killers. Of course, you hypocrites with an axe to grind against the organization responsible for Abdullahi Yusuf's failure and the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Mogadishu, and those others such as Somaliweyn and Twisted who now see Al Shabaab as preventing them from consolidating control over Mogadishu under the "Hawiye clan" name will attempt to label them, conclusively, as the culprits without any conclusive evidence saying so.
Al Shabaab is an highly organized, hierarchical organization with an established and very public chain of command. It is official when anyone in that chain of command claims the act. Until then it is not. That is the first part of my reservation in this topic.
2. The second part of my reservation addresses the legitimacy of the killing of murtads and what Islamic law says about it. In Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri's book the Reliance of the Traveller, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law it is written concering the sentencing of murtads:
On the legality of killing a murtad:
o8.1: When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
So under Islamic law, a murtad is to be killed. This is established. However, let us look at how the sentencing goes and who can administer it.
On the choices before the murtad:
o8.2: In such a case, it is obligatory for the Caliph (or his representatives) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is to be immediately killed.
So under Islamic law, the Caliph is forced to offer the murtad the choice of repenting and reentering the fold of Islam. If the murtad chooses to reenter Islam, the Caliph is forced to let him go but if the murtad refuses to renounce his position, the Caliph is forced to kill him immediately.
On the legality of Judging a murtad's sentence:
o8.3: If he is a freeman, no one besides the Caliph or his representatives may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17). (O: for arrogating the Caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
So under Islamic law, ONLY the Caliph has the right to judge and sentence a murtad. Anyone else who takes the matter into their own hands, has to be "disciplined".
On the legality of a murtad reentering Islam, becoming a murtad again, and reentering Islam a third time, and so on:
o8.5: If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times (O: i.e. his return to Islam , which occurs when he states the two Testitifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).
So under Islamic law, when a murtad reaccepts Islam, then leaves it, then reenters Islam again, etc it is still accept from him and the Caliph does not have the right to kill him but holds the right to "discipline" him.
Conclusion: Under Islamic law, what we see in the video does not follow Islamic law.
Those are my two reservations in this topic.
