Lowest IQ forum members

[gurey25]

everybody forgets that we in the SNM had our share of mooryan animals too.
But we had 10 years to develop the ability to keep control of the situation.

Aideeds USC packed the ranks with anybody and everybody that came from the baadiyo and gave them an AK-47
and he only had less than 2 years to build the ability to keep things under control..

so its a sad case that they were let loose..

its saddening what happened to somalia afterwards,

[abdikarim86]

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

I see Union's clan are out in force tonight

[Kukri]

[melo]

Voltage: You out did yourself. Seeing as how it seems you put some effort into that post, I shall respond in similar fashion soon Inshallah. In the next week, I shall respond, point by point, dismantling most of the miss appropriated evidence you've put out there. Wallahi its a promise. Its just that, I'd rather not come up with a half assed response, to your post.

I will concede however, that MSB was not a communist, in the sense that Marx dictated, nor the other communist regime. However, he took some of the more controversial elements of Marxist theory, and tried to implement into Somalia. Communism is not totally bad. Only certain principles of it are, which is what i was trying to point out. But yet, I will concede that i should have mentioned it. Inshallah, this will be upcoming soon.

[TheblueNwhite]

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.

Melo is the biggest munafiq on Snet.

[abdalla11]

Abdalla: This concept of Jihaad being fought for religion, is what Sheikh Umal, and Cumar faaruuq and Co were arguing about in recent times. Umal says that ONLF should not be supported because they have no Islamic agenda. But the other sheikhs, correctly showed, that Jihaad at its core is about defending your rights and your property from oppression. It doesn't always have to be about fighting for Islam in its proper sense. You might be able to do search about what they said back to Umal.

I am aware of the one who is defending his country, the one who´s defending his property and his dignity are all doing Jihad. But what i´ve seen you doing alot is applying a general statement to specific evens that occured. Not a single somali fraction except for Al-Itixad was fighting based on religious grounds. There is no religious justification for what Caydiid did to the poor people of Baidoa nor was there any reason to sneak in at night in Gaalkacyo, the home of the first people who refused the oppression, and kill hundreds of unarmed people. Mujahidin were always welcomed by the people, they're not called Mukulaal Madow

ONLF are fighting against armed army, they didnt starve Eelays to death.

[kismayogedojubaland]

HutuQueen01 Has the Lowest IQ of all Snet Members.

[Voltage]

Voltage: You out did yourself. Seeing as how it seems you put some effort into that post, I shall respond in similar fashion soon Inshallah. In the next week, I shall respond, point by point, dismantling most of the miss appropriated evidence you've put out there. Wallahi its a promise. Its just that, I'd rather not come up with a half assed response, to your post.

I will concede however, that MSB was not a communist, in the sense that Marx dictated, nor the other communist regime. However, he took some of the more controversial elements of Marxist theory, and tried to implement into Somalia. Communism is not totally bad. Only certain principles of it are, which is what i was trying to point out. But yet, I will concede that i should have mentioned it. Inshallah, this will be upcoming soon.

If God is my witness that took me less than 15 minutes to write. What is there to deliberate about and does my post even need a response? You are a hypocrite plain and simple and one that misuses the religion and is not that aware or knowledge about cilmaani (worldly) stuff such as modern political, economic, and social systems such as "communism." I am glad to at least see you will not be repeating the communist term again now that you understand what the term means.

[Voltage]

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

You are not that bright to be honest from what I have seen although we do share the same perspective on foreign politics, however if it must be told the Jubbaland of Kenya thing is a joke on my part.

[samadoon-waaxid]

lol,interesting topic.i dont know how I missed it.alla maxaa meesha half truths lagu soo dhigay.I used to think Melo was one of the most reasonable members of this board who write about islamic affairs but he fell from heaven as a religous mooryanist.however,to be fair to him.the man does have some religious back up and a leg to stand on.there are many scholars on the salafi circles who still maintain that descending into war and chaos is much better than losing one's deen and creed under a marxist ruler.and they amend the xadith that voltage wrote (the one about living under a tyrant ruler is better than 1 night in chaos) and would assert that only those rulers who rule by ALLAH's rule are included in this hadith.and conversly,a "kaafir" ruler deserves a full blown defiance from his subjects.Melo hasnt said anything thing new,he merely reieterated the theories he heard from his teachers.but forgot to take it with a grain of salt

[Voltage]

Samadoon don't confuse situations. Admittedly I am not a Sheikh nor profess great knowledge in the deen but I myself like to understand and comprehend as much as I can whether religious or not. I have spoken to many wadaado (Somali to Pakistani as well as an American convert and professor of Islamic studies) and have read a fair share on the nature of the Muslim ruler. Of course, no one can say Siyad was a khaliif, but as a Muslim man who never renounced his Islamic identity and built Mosques, etc he is very much included in the Hadiith talked about by the prophet; Tyranny (if we agree on this as Siad as an autocrat) is better than anarchy (which Somalia has descended into). Realizing the importance of stability and peace, I have become even more a follower of the Saudi viewpoint that some like to paint "Salafi Jadiid" in which raising arms against a Muslim leader is considered a sin in itself. Melo to me is a hypocrite and has found his interpretation of the faith that he tried to bring closer to his mooryaan viewpoints. He is a failure in that regard.

[melo]

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.

[union]

Look at this donkey nay like there’s no tomorrow. Watch him say next that U.S troops in Iraq are fighting a jihad because they were removing tyrant leader Sadddam. And once again this low IQ monkey seems to ignore the fact that the USC was not fighting against only MSB, but dozens of Somali tribes including many who had nothing to do with MSB or his government. If the war was just about Siyad, it would be ended pretty damn quick.


This donkey would like us to believe that a jihad ordained by God was funded by Ethiopia and fought by rogues from the central regions. Haye, so does that mean Mujahid Mingustu and Mujahid Aideed will share the same spot in heaven along with all the other USC moryian.

Melo you can now join the ranks of HutuKing and Abdiwahab as the local crackpot hawyie ayatollah.

[melo]

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. 

I agree.

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.

Bad Analogy to me. A better analogy, would be, helping the lady cross the road, then seeing her the next week, and pushing her down. This does not negate your earlier work in helping her at all. That is USC to me.

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.

Yes, Caydiid, left his comfy diplomatic role, to come to Ethiopia, and start training fighters, all in the hope of raping and pillaging the Darood. Ok . 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.

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?

Having Known people in Somalia at the time, I am led to believe that Caydiid in particular, was not directing the random assault on the Darood. In fact, a lot of this butchery, was committed by forces, who weren't the regularly trained USC forces that Caydiid had been mentoring. His complicity in this, was that he didn't preven it from happening, most likely due to him being busy with other more larget scale issues. However, his refusal to reign in these elements of USC are a black stain (like all the other stains) in Caydiid's chequered history.

Having Said that, this does not make Caydiid's previous actions obsolete. Refer to the Above anaology.

Heck, Look at the French revolution. The same revolutionaries, brought in the era of Terror. That does not dismiss their activities against King Louis, who by the Way, was not half as tyrannical as MSB was. Freedom fighters can turn into villains. It happens all the time. Does not mean, at the time they were fighting, they weren't fighting for a legit cause.

 

Where did Somalia ever adopt communism as a politica/social ideology? It never existed

Siyaad Barre implemented this Scientific socialism crap, which tried to bridge the gap between Marxist history, and Islam. He nationalized, a lot of the industries, trying to making it more marxist in nature. Just because Siyaad did not nationalize all the businesses, does not dismiss his marxist credentials completely. Look at the Chinese today..

Secondly, you speak about building religious places of worship, as if thats vindication against the claim he was a marxist. Umm.. that doesnt mean shit. Just look at contemporary examples- China, who have state run churches. Likewise, Lennin and Co, did not close down all religious places of worship. What the Marxists were truly afraid of, was religious figures playing a part in the political process. This is why Siyaad hated the Aqwaan. They weren't like the Qaadriyyah, who were content with whirling around, and doing dawaaf around their Graves. The Aqwaan wanted to bring Islam into the political area. This was the threat posed to Marxism. As for building, harmless mosques, then safe to say, that even supposed Communist regimes have no problem maintaining a political places of worship.

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).

I already mained, that Siyaad thought his laws were inheritance were superior to that of the Islamic law. The Aqwaan told him. Others told him. He said waa khurufaad, and that the struggle for equality for women, was an ongoing one. He believe his laws were more progressive, than the Islamic ones. This is kufr AKBAR. Don't try and play games here. You qabiilism is blidning you.

[melo]

Look at this donkey nay like there’s no tomorrow. Watch him say next that U.S troops in Iraq are fighting a jihad because they were removing tyrant leader Sadddam. And once again this low IQ monkey seems to ignore the fact that the USC was not fighting against only MSB, but dozens of Somali tribes including many who had nothing to do with MSB or his government. If the war was just about Siyad, it would be ended pretty damn quick.


This donkey would like us to believe that a jihad ordained by God was funded by Ethiopia and fought by rogues from the central regions. Haye, so does that mean Mujahid Mingustu and Mujahid Aideed will share the same spot in heaven along with all the other USC moryian.

Melo you can now join the ranks of HutuKing and Abdiwahab as the local crackpot hawyie ayatollah.

Siyaad Barre was an apostate, tyrant. Jihaad against him was waajib. Anyone who partook in this struggle, was correct. It is not xaraam, to seek aid of Kaafirs (even jews), against other other Kaafirs.