Ok, I'm going to esablish now, why Jihaad was Waajib against Siyaad Barre, and why those who fought against him were Mujaahids.
Point Number 1
What is Jihad?
Jihad in the essence is struggling in the Path of Allah SWT, to rid the world of Dhulm. This can include Jihaad by money, mouth, or actual fighting. The Greatness of Jihaad, that is ridding the world of Dhulm has been established, in the Quran and Sunnah.
http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0234.aspx
Was Siyaad Barre a Tyrant?
Well I'm not going to spend a year explaining this. I think everyone knows what Siyaad did to the Isaaq, Hawiye and his brotherly darood. We also Know how Siyaad banned women from wearing Hijaabs in colleges, as well his execution and arresting of Clerics. I don't think anyone can argue that Siyaad In the latter days was not a tyrant. Everyone has family members who suffered under that tyrannical regime.
Was Siyaad's regime a Kafir one? This is probably the biggest legitimiser for jihaad against Siyaad's Government
Allah SWT says in the Quran
“Inil Hukm illa lillah” “ Wa man lam yahkum bimaa anzallahu fa ulaaikah hum-ul kaafiruun” and a host of other Vereses. It indicates the seriousness of ruling by Sharics of Allah and his messenger. However, as the Culemaa stated, the precondition here, is that Istihlaal is required for those rulers who abandon the Shariica in certain areas, to be declared apostate regimes. That is to say, they have to believe that the law they put into place, is better than the Shariica law. If this is found to be true, then this person will be counciled, and if he does not repent, he will be declared an apostate. This is no different than many other Major sins also. I should note here, is that the Culemaa of previous generations said that this istihlaal precondition only applies to people who reject the Shariica in certain areas, and not the wholesale replacing of Islamic systems with unislamic laws. Refer to Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya' works, you know, the intellectual ideologe of the salafi jadiidi movement you subscribe too.
With this in mind, Here are the obligatory half a dozen quotes from the Scholars
Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
And it is known by necessity in the Deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims that whoever follows a Sharee'ah other than the Sharee'ah of Muhammad then he is a Kaafir and it is like the Kufr of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book." –"Al-Fataawa", Vol. 28/ 524
Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer said:
"So whoever leaves the clear Sharee'ah, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Hukm to the 'Yasaaq' (the law of the Tartars which mixed Sahree'ah rulings with invented rulings) and puts it before it?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa' of the Muslims."
– "Al-Bidaayah wa Nihaayah", Vol. 13/ 119
The Saudi Sheikhs
Shaikh 'Abdul-'Azeez Ibn 'Abdullaah Ibn Baaz said:
"There is no Eemaan for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allaah are more encompassing and more just." – "Risalaat Wujoob Tah'keem Sharee'at Allaah' Pg. 39, which follows the "Risalaat Tah'keem Al-Qawaneen" Published by "Daar Al-Muslim"
Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen said:
"The first type is when the Hukm of Allaah is removed and replaced with another Taghuutee Hukm, so that the Hukm of the Sharee'ah is eliminated between the people and he puts in its place another Hukm from the fabrication of the humans and they remove the laws of the Sharee'ah concerning the Mu'amilah (i. e. the general actions between people) and they put in its place fabricated laws and this, without doubt, is Istib'daal (i. e. replacement) of the Sharee'ah of Allaah subhaanahuu wa-ta'ala, with other than it. And this is Kufr which removes one from the Milla because this person put himself at the level of the Creator because he shara'a (legislated) for the slaves of Allaah that which Allaah ta'ala did not give permission for and that is Shirk in His, ta'ala's saying: "Or have they partners with Allâh (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion, which Allâh has not allowed?" (Ash-Shu'ara, 21) – "Fiqh Al-' Eebaadaat", #60
Imaam Ibn Jareer At-Tabaree said:
"He ta'ala says, whoever conceals the Hukm of Allaah, which He revealed in His Book and made it a law between the slaves – so he hides it and rules with other than it like the Hukm of the Jews concerning the married fornicators with whipping of the guilty and blackening their faces and concealing the Hukm of stoning and like their judging upon some of their murdered with full blood-money and some with half of their blood-money. And concerning the noble people, they would have Qisaas but the commoner would only get the blood money. But Allaah made all of them equal in the Tauraat: …such are the Kâfirûn. They are the ones who concealed the truth, which was upon them to uncover and make clear. And they hid it from the people and they showed something different to the people and they judged according to that (changed Hukm) because of a bribe they took from them." (* So the point of At-Tabaree here is that he considers this Ayaah general for anyone who does what the Jews did and hold this Ayaah meaning of Kufr Akbaar upon anyone who does what they did.)
– "Tafseer Al-Tabaree" Vol. 4/ 592
Shaikh Muhammad al-Ghunaymaan was asked:
"The one who leaves the Hukm by what Allaah revealed; if he makes the general judgements with the fabricated laws, does he disbelieve? And is there a difference between that and the one who judges with the Sharee'ah but then he opposes the Sharee'ah in some of the matters due to desire or bribery or other than that?"
So he answered, "Yes, it is Waajib to differentiate between them. There is a difference between the one who throws away the Hukm of Allaah, jala-wa'ala and replaces it with the judgements with the laws and the judgement of mankind. This is Kufr, which takes one outside the Milla of Islaam. But the one who is Multazim (i. e. religiously committed) upon the Deen of Islaam except that he is disobedient and a Thaalim by following his desires in some of the Ah'kaam and goes after a benefit from the Dunyah, while accepting that he is Thaalim with this, then this is not Kufr, which takes you out of the Milla. And whoever sees the Hukm with the laws to be equal to the Hukm of the Shara' and makes it Halaal, then he also disbelieves with the Kufr that takes one outside the Milla, even if it is in one instance."
– "Mujaalit Al-Mishkaat", Vol. 4/ 247
Alaamah Muhammad Ibn Ibraaheem Aal-Ash-Shaykh said:
"… The fifth, and it is the greatest and the most encompassing and the clearest opposition of the Sharee'ah and stubbornness in the face of its laws and insulting to Allaah and His Messenger and opposing the courts of the Sharee'ah on their roots and branches and their types and their appearances and judgements and implementations the references and their applications. So just like the courts of the Sharee'ah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger like that, these courts have references, which are laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws and from the Metha'haab of some of the innovators who claim to be under the Sharee'ah.
And these courts are now fully operational in the settlements of Islaam, people entering them one after another, their rulers judge upon them with what opposes the Sunnah and the Book with the rules of that law and they impose that on them and approve it for them. So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr and what nullification of the Shahaadah of Muhammadar Rasool-Allaah is there beyond this nullification?!
– "Tah'keem Al-Qawaneen"
Imaam Ash-Shawkaani said:
"Now we will make clear to you the condition of the second type and it is the Hukm of the people of the state who aren't under the command of the state" – until his saying –
"from it is that they judge and take the Hukm to the ones who know the Ah'kaam of the Tawagheet in all of the matters that they are in charge of and they take it to them without making Inkaar and without any shame in front of Allaah or His slaves and they do not fear anyone, rather they can rule with that anyone who they are able to reach from the citizens and those who surround them. And this is a known matter, which no one can deny or reject, and this is well known. And there is no doubt that this is Kufr in Allaah, subhanahu wa-ta'ala and His Sharee'ah, which He ordered with upon the tongue of His Messenger and chose for His slaves in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger. They even disbelieved in all of the laws from the time of Adam (pbuh) until now and the Jihaad against them and fighting them is Waajib until they accept the laws of Islaam and submit to them and rule among with the pure Sharee'ah and they leave what they were upon of Tawagheet Shaytaaneeyah" – until his saying –
"and it is known from the rules of the pure Sharee'ah and its texts that whoever puts himself to fight those people and seeks the aid of Allaah and makes his intention sincere, then he will be from the victorious and he will have the reward because Allaah will give victory to whoever supports Him. And: 'And if you give victory to Allaah, He will give victory to you and firmly plant your feet. And the reward is for the Muttaqun."
– until his saying –
" So if he who was able to fight them, leaves the making Jihaad against them, then he is under the threat of punishment descending upon him and deserving of what comes upon him because Allaah has placed over the people of Islaam certain groups as a punishment for them because they would not leave the Munkaarat and they did not try to adhere to the pure Sharee'ah just like what happened with the conquering of the Khawaarij in the early days of Islaam then the conquering of the Qaramatah and the Batineeyah then the conquering of the Turks until they almost wiped out Islaam and like what occurs often with the conquering of the Europeans and the people like them. So keep and open mind, O people of sight! Verily, there is a lesson in this for whoever has a heart or was given hearing and the gift of sight!"
– From his letter, "Al-Dawa Al-' Ajaal" Pg. 33-35 which came within "Ar-Rasa'il As-Salafeeyah"
This is all from the Salafi movement, as you should recognise all these names by now. Ibn Baaz clearly states, that there is no iman for those who believe that there are laws out there, which are superior to the Islamic Laws. Ghunayman clearly states, that there is a difference between legislating in certain matters unislamically due to fisq (bribary for eg), and wholesale judgement by other than Allah. One entails istihlaal, as putting into a system of laws indicate that you think these kufri laws are superior.
Now did Siyaad believe his inheritance laws were better than the Islamic laws? Yes, you might go on about women were not getting the inheritance, but how does this justify, putting into a law, that makes inheritance equal? Siyaad equated this to the long struggle of independence for women, and that women deserved this, seeing as how they were bedrock of society. Siyaad believed this law was BETTER, than the Islamic law on inheritance. He killed the culemaa who stood up, to tell him this is kufr. It becomes clear then, that Siyaad was a kaafir.
This isn't even touching Siyaad Banning of the hijaab in schools- another clear sign of Kufr. The man put into running, a system called scientfici socialism, which attempted to combine elements of Islam and Marxism, but which ended in disaster, as they at certain times could not meet up. He would then, take the marxist principles over the Islamic ones.
Siyaad Barre is reported to have said about inhertiance being divided into halves, 1/4ths , 1/6ths etc, “Waxaas waxba kama jiraan, waana khuraafaad. “.
This indicates clearly, without a shadow of the doubt, that Siyaad's regime was an apostate regime. Even the Jadiids in this regard we'll agree, just like Saddam Hussein, Siyaad was a kaafir. Perhaps, you should go ask your Jadiidi clerics, about istihlaal and Hukm bi-ghayr ma anzallah.
Was it obligatory to fight against the Regime? Was it Jihaad?
We've already Established that Jihaad, is a fight against oppression to rid society of Dhulm. We also established, that not only was Siyaad was a repressive tyrant, but also an apostate one. With this established, is it waajib or not, if you have to means, to fight against such a leader? I mean, there are dozens of works about legitimate Jihaad, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know fighting against such a leader is Jihad Akbar.
Therefore, The Jihaad waged against Siyaad barre, was legitimate in every sense of the matter. Those who partook in it, might have not been perfect, but the war they fought in, ticked all the boxes of Jihaad.
. It had nothing to do with hearing the cries and screams of his brothers and sisters, who were being pillaged by that Tyrant known as Siyaad. It should also be stated, that just before MSB took over power, M faarax caydiid got a wind of it, and tried to prevent it from happening. He was never, at any stage, was fully content with Siyaad, and it became ever more clear, when Siyaad started butchering people left right and centre.