SomaliNet Forums

what a contrast!

What work? Shirib is Digil and Mirifle, Abdalle is Majerten, etc. None of whom like Siad Barre but everyone who is not a hypocrite across all clans thinks you are one of the most dangerous hypocrites to misuse the religion in this forum. There are so many parables I can bring that show people like you do not fare well infront of God but your arrogance in the religion will never let you see it. You can be arrogant in anything, though arrogance itself is frowned upon, but arrogance in the face of faith is a clear sign of a munaafaq.

There is a significant difference between disagreeing with someone in one area, and then suggesting they are a "dangerous hypocrite who misuses religion". If you want to Ask Shirib, or even Cabdalle, on whether or not, I have promoted some sort of tribal superiority on this forum, then go a head. You can read my posts, and you will see most of my criticisms have been levelled at my own kinsmen. I can summarize to you, ideas and thoughts i've attacked on this forum

Shiicism
Innovated forms of Sufism
Tribalism- Whether it be Isaaqinimo, Sacadnimo, Majertinimo or whatever.
Secularism


Its just that people cannot handle an attack on their heroes. Maybe you should go read up on different perspectives on what Jihaad is. It is at its core, the defence of your rights and property against dhulm. The people who are fighting against the Arab Tyrants right now are mujaahids. The people who fought against Siyaad were mujaahidiin. The brothers in ONLF are mujaahidiin. I do not subscribe to the view, that Jihaad is solely about "making Alah's word the highest". Jihaad is much more broader than that. Jihaad is the defense of basic human needs.

The problem with you guys is that either

a) Tribal loyalties are bliding you. Juniour Siyaadists have to protect their master at all costs. There are also larger tribal implications here.
b) Actions after the fact, are clouding your Judgment

I don't think there will be a lot of people who will take you seriously about the religion from henceforth.

You show me how I'm misusing religion.

I have define to you what Jihaad is. I then, based on this definition, concluded that the overthrowal of MSB was Jihaad. I then said, that those who were involved, were Mujaahidiin. Prove this wrong from a religious perspective. If you can do this, then i'll concede the argument

I am comfortable in where i stand. I have my own kinsmen telling me, that i have sold out on the beesha, pushing an ideology which is jeberti in essence. I then have the other side, telling me, i am a tribalist. This suggests that I am somewhere near the middle of things, alxamdulillah

to legitimize a heinous, anti-Islamic criminal rebellion

ANTI-ISLAMIC kulaha.. rebellion against a communist regime who was brutalizing its own citizens is "anti Islamic"

Walahi youre a comic. I now realized, that you actually don't know anything. I will not respond to you again, unless you go pick up a book and read.

According to the idiot above, jihad isn’t about making the word of God supreme, but rather a term that can be applied loosely to any number of conflicts happening around the world. In his eyes, the term “mujahid” is a cheap and easily available term that even the raping, looting and pillaging militiamen of aided are entitled to. The munafiq snake has for the past few months masqueraded as a pious man above tribalism, but he has been exposed today and his hypocrisy and corruption are apparent for all to see.

Jihaad in one form, is resistance against unjustified oppression. The removal of MSB was exactly that. Period. I not only apply this to caydiid, but also SNM and whoever else fought and resisted against the criminal identity known as MSB.

But as usual, you start conflating issues that happened after the fact, with what i'm focusing on. Its a cheap tactic, and not something i'm going to fall for.

You simply have no argument. You keep talking about “issues that happened after the fact” but you fail to realize that aiddeed was from the get go interested only in becoming leader for his own personal enrichment. If he were a man interested in only removing a tyrant he wouldn’t have fought Ali Mahdi so hard for the Presidency. You appear to be either too obtuse to understand the fallacy of your argument, or just too in love with your uncle slain by a 12 year old that you don’t know when to pull out. But then again you were the guy showing off about how many of your cadaan friends know about aidded so I am not surprised.

ut you fail to realize that aiddeed was from the get go interested in becoming leader for his own personal enrichment.

As i've said before, I find this type of speech useless. You cannot judge intention, only action. You cannot ascertain the intention of Caydiid at the time he was fighting Siyaad. How do you know, what he was fighting for, at that given moment in time? You don't. Therefore, we judge by the apparent.

Secondly, even if you can ascertain that Caydiid fought for that reason (which i find problematic), that does not dismiss all the other people involved who fought to liberate themselves from that criminal. That does dismiss SNM, who fought to liberate their people, and were happy to stay apart of the Union, untill Shiica Cali mahdi decided to be unilaterial.


What we do know, is that Caydiid left comfy roles, to go to the Ethiopia and begin training armed militia men. That is what we know for a fact. What we also know, is that Siyaad was massacring people on mass, and had declared war on the religion. That is another fact.

As for you analysis of Caydiid's mindstate, due to actions after the fact, i tell you stop playing God.

Does it not occur to you, that Caydiid's lust for power, might have become dominant later on, and not initially? There are ample enough of examples, where liberators turn into Criminals. Caydiid is a good example of this. We can say the same thing about the Taliban. Actions after the fact, do not dismiss early virtuous actions.

The reality of the matter, is that you, as a secularist and a MX man, support MSB unconditionally. To you, his indiscretions were justified, because it was against the lowly hutu and iidoors. His declaration of war against Islam means nothing to you, because you are secularist too. You have no reason to object to MSB what so ever. You have no objectivity in this area what so ever.

untill Shiica Cali mahdi decided to be unilaterial.

President Ali Mahdi is a sunni muslim who adheres to the shaficah madhab..bal,do you have an evidence to support your claim that he is/was in fact a shia?

untill Shiica Cali mahdi decided to be unilaterial.

President Ali Mahdi is a sunni muslim who adheres to the shaficah madhab..bal,do you have an evidence to support your claim that he is/was in fact a shia?

innallilah.

the term simply means: "supporter" whether shia't Ali mhdi, or shi'at Abdulrauf Sheikh suufi

untill Shiica Cali mahdi decided to be unilaterial.

President Ali Mahdi is a sunni muslim who adheres to the shaficah madhab..bal,do you have an evidence to support your claim that he is/was in fact a shia?

innallilah.

the term simply means: "supporter" whether shia't Ali mhdi, or shi'at Abdulrauf Sheikh suufi

I know that shia literally means "faction" but the context in which he used to refer to PRESIDENT ALI Mahdi imply that the president has a shia religious affiliation which far from truth.

nothing tells that, he simply meant just follower or supporter of Ali Mahdi. ive read many times he use this term with many different people that nothing to do with shia sect.

ut you fail to realize that aiddeed was from the get go interested in becoming leader for his own personal enrichment.

As i've said before, I find this type of speech useless. You cannot judge intention, only action. You cannot ascertain the intention of Caydiid at the time he was fighting Siyaad. How do you know, what he was fighting for, at that given moment in time? You don't. Therefore, we judge by the apparent.

What in this world is this guy talking about? I truly believe he should take Abdisamed's position in Union's categorization of low IQ. Inamal acmaalu biniyaati....actions are but by intentions. Let me repeat this again in case you did not understand. Inamal acmaalu biniyaati...actions are but by intentions. This is the first and primary of the arbaciin. Your intentions should be judged according to your actions and your action should reflect your intentions.

If I see an old lady having difficulty crossing the street and I announce that I will go and help that old lady cross, I have pronounced an action. No one knows my intentions yet of course. Suppose then I push the lady over and run off with her purse; do my intentions then not reflect the nature of my actions? Again, I self-announced altruism and showing mercy towards an elderly person, but by my actions of taking advantage of the old lady and stealing her valuables my action then reflects that my intention was designed to steal and not help.

In the same way, you said Caydiid's intentions could not be ascertained when he started fighting. However, Caydiid then did get into Mogadishu and the nature of his actions reflected his true intentions. He did not want to overthrow a man because he was oppressive, he carried centuries of tribal vengeance and bitterness and destruction of life and property of saqiir and kabiir of one of Somalia's largest clans, and led Somalia into the apocalypse it became that saw more fitna, chaos, rape and hellish shaydaan fiefdom it has become. When Caydiid got into Mogadishu and the USC took down Siad Barre, Caydiid is the man who then turned against all of Darood, not only Marehan, whether innocent or not, but as well the very same people that should be mujaahid in your eyes because they took up arms against Siad Barre before your own USC (the Majeerteen). Does his actions not reflect his intentions using the Hadiith of the prophet "inamal acmaalu bi niyaati" actions are but by intentions? What we do reflect our intentions? I mean I can't believe you are even defending this on religious grounds. Your hero Hassan Dahir Aweys himself, who fought against Caydiid twice while leading Al Itihad first in Araare bridge near Kismaayo, cursed him as the worst man born to the Somali people. Do you understand your hypocrisy now?

Also, Siad Barre is by no means a saint, but where are you getting communism, anti-Islam and all these things? Are you actually telling me to read a book when your understanding of Somalia is worse then little middle schooler in suburban Virginia who was told to do a 5 minute presentation on Somalia? Where was Somalia a communist nation? Where did Somalia ever adopt communism as a politica/social ideology? It never existed. Because of the intrenched support of the West and USA to Haile Salassie Ethiopia, Somalia signed a treat of friendship with the Soviets and claimed to adopt socialism (socialism is very much compatible with Islam, in fact almost all Islamic laws on society are socialistic) to get support. The world wasn't unipolar then, but bi-polar. I can bring you many articles including Fidel Castro's personal reflections after a visit to Somalia saying that no socialism exists in the country and that it is all a ploy to gain military favors from the Soviets and he was right because following the '77 war, Somalia as easily changed sides and even offically and easily carted off the socialist veneer even changing the ruling party from Somali Socialist Revolution Council to Somali Revolutionary Council. Do you even understand what communism means or how it exists and how it is implemented since you repeated communism couple of times? Do you just throw around terms to sound smart because all I have seen from you is what we call bullshitting. Communism means no state religion, no private businesses, no selling or buying, no owning land, no prayer, no houses of worship, etc. How could the Somalia that had private businesses (Warshada Bayl for example owned by Xiirey Qaasim a Murusade, or other capitalist ventures owned by people like Uunlaaye a Majerten, Jirde Xussein an Isaaq, Xoosh Kibrey a Marehan, etc), had a state religion in its constitution (Islam), actively built houses of worship (even now the biggest mosque in Somalia is the one built by Siyaad--Masjidka Isbahaysiga or Mosque of Unity), that had its people selling and buying and owning land be called communist? As preposterous as that question might even sound, I feel I need to ask to gauge just how relatively intelligent you are.

Also, the one instance of anti-Islam that is leveled against Siad is the misunderstood family inheritance law that saw religious people shot. But even then we have to ask, what exactly did these people protest about? Was their protest warranted? Here is the speech Barre gave on the eve of the family inheritance law in 1974 even we were officially a "socialist" country:

http://www.afmaal.com/videos/toban.wadaad.html

If you listen to the beginning, he outlines that girls were not entitled to their inheritance under old Somali culture which was true; the girl's inheritance used to be taken by her paternal clansmen. It still is in the more remote nomadic areas. In the middle, Siad seems to praise the nature of the civilizing modicum of the faith (Islam) which he says has been discarded by Somalis or rather the principal of justice if not equality in matters between the son and daughter. When he talks about waa laydin ku shubay (they have instilled in you), you get the sense he was talking about the tribal elders and some clerics who misuse the faith to instill misogynism in the already male-dominated Somali cultural structure. It cannot be denied by anyone that women are very much oppressed in Somali nomadic culture and are denied even basic rights accorded to them by Islam. I don't get how he would be interpreted to be anti-Islamic when very clearly, in the middle of the audio, he praises the faith. "Safiirka Islaamka waxuu ku dhisnaa inuu xoreeyo ummada" (Islam's essence is to free mankind...here is attacking the oppression of Somali women in Somali nomadic oriented culture).

Also, even while Siad was still in Mogadishu following the USC invasion of Mogadishu, here he is in Radio broadcast describing the anti-Islamic actions being committed by the rebels such as looting, raping, killing, and destroying the structures of society (things we have been witnessing for 20 years now). Look at the nature of religious symbolism used imploring them to come back to the faith and act accordingly as Muslims instead of barbarians without a sense of right or wrong;

From Waagacusub (Habar Gidir/Sacad media)

[youtube]JXZ5ol4EEqA&feature=related[/youtube]

To summarize, Siad Barre was not an Islamic leader in the likes of a Caliph but he was a leader who was a Muslim and that is proven by his actions (instilling Islam as state religion, building Mosques, etc) and words (continuous verbalization of his Muslim nature). So we are to go to your two points; Aydiid's intentions were not the end results of his actions and Siad was a communist. You are an ignorant failure on both. Inamal acmaalu bi niyaati, actions are but by intentions...actions result from intentions. True we cannot read hearts, that is a power that belongs to Allah (SWT) but as our prophet explicitly told us actions represent intentions and the actions of Aydiid...sanctioning rape, murder, looting, fitna results from, as we judge from our prophet, his intentions. He did not fight Siad to get rid of a bad leader, he fought to cause destruction and mayhem including attacking clans all over, starving people (keeping UN donated food as a political weapon while thousands starved), and he even fought his own Hawiye in order that he replace Siad and only he. Again I ask you to read Nuriddin Farah's book Voices from Somali Diaspora. Nurridin is the last man to be accused of being pro-Siyaad having been exiled from Somalia in the middle '70's and even now dislikes Siyaad but in one part of his book he talks to a former USC child soldier now in an insane asylum in Switzerland. The man chronicles how they were taught to use Hashiish and Khamri at the same time so they "lose" their humanity which could make them easily kill, rape, lose judgement to commit all kinds of inhumane things at the strict command of Caydiid. Inamal Acmaalu bi niyaati, actions are but by intentions and nothing you have said reflects both the actions as well as intentions of Caydiid. As for Siad being a communist, I think that has also been covered. Honestly, just the fact you even used such a small thinking to that regard makes me laugh as I type this.

And to end, the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said "sixty years under tyranny is better than one day of anarchy". I don't know how you could ever excuse 20 years of anarchy where no one was king and checkpoints, rape, murder for plastic cellphone, injustice, oppression, thugs, militias, clan fights, and our capital city being called the most dangerous city on earth...I don't know how you could ever excuse that while claiming to follow the sunnah of the prophet.

You are a hypocrite plain and simple and it is a disrespect to all of us and any Muslim for you to continue to misusing the faith in this venue.

Seemeyer, no wonder Union chases you around. You are another fake little creature. Why do you 24/7 talk about Palestine and other Islamic affairs when you advocate the division of the already singularly Muslim Somalia in favor of a little Ethiopian protectorate for tribal reasons? Another jaahil diinta ku ciyaaro baad tahay.

I actually believe Gedo, Lower Jubba, Middle Jubba (Jubbaland regions) should secede to Kenya.

I know why your riled though,'cos melo is right
F#ck MSB he was a tyrant and anybody that fought him were doing so rightly
You can write an essay or a whole volumes of books.Nothing will change what your adeer was