A beautiful Catholic church in Mogadishu

[cooli3o]

How can you say that when the prophet ﷺ ordered us to imitate the Sheykhayn Abu Bakar and Umar radiyalahu anhumaa.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: اقتدوا باللذين من بعدي : أبي بكر وعمر

Ibn Hazm explaining this hadith said: the prophet ordered us to imitate and follow the example of the Sheykhayn because he was sure they will never diverge from his Sunnah.

The Ijtihad of Umar and Abubakar is Deen.

they all made ijtihaad, the sahaba differed with each other alot, we are not comanded to follow all there ijtihaad, the command is when they are leaders, because you must obey your leaders especially the rightly guided ones, and their judgement is closest to the truth
but their ijtihaad is not always correct, there were many sahaba who had ikhtilaaf with Umar RA,

plus Umar RA used his hikma to alleviate hudood punishments and change some

an example, if I told people cutting peoples hands off may not be applicable, they would say im liberal, but Umar RA alleviated the hudood punishment when his people were in poverty because stealing was done due to neccesity

now, here we see, the crime is the exact same, but we see that the reason for the punishment of the crime is not here, so the hudood is alleviated. point being the sharia applies to certain situations and times, the way our countries are now is not the same as in the past, many rulings have changed, so it is up to the scholars in our day and age to see what is suitable

All I am saying is we live in completely different times, so to understand if it applies in our time now requires scholars to decide, not a blanket statement that every single country should implement this right now which is a Muslim country

 

[Omar del Sur]

@cooli3o show us a classical fiqh book that supports your views.... shows us the page where it supports your views so we can take a look at it.

 

[cooli3o]

coolio is just making stuff up. the so-called "martyrs of Cordoba" were executed in Al-Andalus because they apostasized. they weren't waging a war against the state, they were simply executed for apostasy.

you said do not use future Islamic states as examples now you are going back on yourself and using the future Islamic states as a way to refute me, pick one or the other

 

[Omar del Sur]

you said do not use future Islamic states as examples now you are going back on yourself and using the future Islamic states as a way to refute me, pick one or the other

I mentioned the incident because you had claimed that classically it was understood as you are saying. but the incident shows that this is not how apostasy was classically understood.

 

[Hamzza]

the sharia isnt changing, its just some parts are not applicable in certain times.

Do you know the implication of what you are stating?

The Sharia isn't changing but some parts are not applicable at certain times in other words this is like saying Allah is clueless and had no idea that the Sharia he sent will not be appropriate at certain times. Subhanalah!

did you know their is not hadd punishment for Alchohol, it is something Umar ibnul khattab made to punish people for drinking alchohol

You are speaking from a place of ignorance as always.

The prophet ﷺ flogged a person who drank Khamro

عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه «أَنَ النّبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أُتِي بِرَجُل قَدْ شَرِب الْخَمْرَ، فَجَلَدَهُ بِجَريدة نحو أربعين»

Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: A man who had drunk alcohol was brought to the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him), who hit him with a palm stalk with about forty lashes.
Sahih/Authentic. - [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

So there is clearly a hadd punishment of flogging for the one who drinks khamro and you are making lies against Umar Radiyalahu anhu who was following the example of the prophet ﷺ.

 

[cooli3o]

@cooli3o show us a classical fiqh book that supports your views.... shows us the page where it supports your views so we can take a look at it.

did you read the article I sent?

 

[cooli3o]

I mentioned the incident because you had claimed that classically it was understood as you are saying. but the incident shows that this is not how apostasy was classically understood.

well the understanding of latter generations cannot be used as evidence in your case since the latter khulafaa did other unIslamic things that could be used as evidence aswelll

 

[cooli3o]

Do you know the implication of what you are stating?

The Sharia isn't changing but some parts are not applicable at certain times in other words this is like saying Allah is clueless and had no idea that the Sharia he sent will not be appropriate at certain times. Subhanalah!


You are speaking from a place of ignorance as always.

The prophet ﷺ flogged a person who drank Khamro

عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه «أَنَ النّبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أُتِي بِرَجُل قَدْ شَرِب الْخَمْرَ، فَجَلَدَهُ بِجَريدة نحو أربعين»

Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: A man who had drunk alcohol was brought to the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him), who hit him with a palm stalk with about forty lashes.
Sahih/Authentic. - [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

So there is clearly a hadd punishment of flogging for the one who drinks khamro and you are making lies against Umar Radiyalahu anhu who was following the example of the prophet ﷺ.

Umar ibnul Khattab RA made the flogging 80 times specifically, and it was not 80 lashes before that

 

[Omar del Sur]

did you read the article I sent?
View attachment 287071

that is pretty hilarious.... so because Ibn Rushd said "before he declares war".... from all that, whoever wrote that article derives the conclusion that the apostasy law no longer applies. all of that is a huge stretch.

 

[cooli3o]

The Sharia isn't changing but some parts are not applicable at certain times in other words this is like saying Allah is clueless and had no idea that the Sharia he sent will not be appropriate at certain times. Subhanalah!

so when Umar ibn khattab changed the ruling on talaq 3 times what exactly was this?
when Umar RA alleviated the punishment for cutting hands off for stealing during times of poverty what was that?

 

[Omar del Sur]

@cooli3o who even wrote that article? someone no one here besides you has even heard of.

 

[cooli3o]

@cooli3o who even wrote that article? someone no one here besides you has even heard of.

I think alot of people have heard of asadullah andalusi
anyway, in an Islalmic country, there is always room for flexibility, and Islamic state can decide to do something else with an apostate if it is in their best interests, the treaty of hudaybiyah is a good example of this.
Anyway my point is, with the current state of our ummah, certain laws and rulings may not be applicable right now since we live in a different age
read this article aswell if you want

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

 

[Omar del Sur]

I think alot of people have heard of asadullah andalusi

ah.... I see...

this explains everything.

 

[World]

But Somali Christians had somewhere to worship. We are not safe in our own lands.

Somali Christians didn’t exist before colonialism.

 

[Hamzza]

they all made ijtihaad, the sahaba differed with each other alot, we are not comanded to follow all there ijtihaad, the command is when they are leaders, because you must obey your leaders especially the rightly guided ones, and their judgement is closest to the truth
but their ijtihaad is not always correct, there were many sahaba who had ikhtilaaf with Umar RA,

I will tke Ibn Hazms explanation of the Hadith over your weak minded analysis anytime.

plus Umar RA used his hikma to alleviate hudood punishments and change some

an example, if I told people cutting peoples hands off may not be applicable, they would say im liberal, but Umar RA alleviated the hudood punishment when his people were in poverty because stealing was done due to neccesity

now, here we see, the crime is the exact same, but we see that the reason for the punishment of the crime is not here, so the hudood is alleviated. point being the sharia applies to certain situations and times, the way our countries are now is not the same as in the past, many rulings have changed, so it is up to the scholars in our day and age to see what is suitable

All I am saying is we live in completely different times, so to understand if it applies in our time now requires scholars to decide, not a blanket statement that every single country should implement this right now which is a Muslim country

Firstly proof the Athar are rightfully attributed to Umar.

فال الله تعالى: فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Among the fundamental principles of Islamic law, on which the scholars are in complete agreement, is that cases of necessity make prohibited stuff permissible.

If a hungry person eats a pig, blood or any of the forbidden foods he will not be blamed. So if a dying person steals something to save his life the hukm will not be applicable to him. This is a universal concept and the Sunnah of the prophet.

So even if it's true and Umar رضي الله عنه suspended the hukm of theft during a year of famine it's still in line with the principles of the Deen.

 

[Omar del Sur]

(deleted the meme to be on the safe side as far as images)

all this just confirms everything myself and @AMusee have been saying about Yaqeen this whole time. this is a whole institute dedicated to watering down Islam. @cooli3o if it is true you used to be Salafi... I am amazed... it really hurts to think a Salafi could sink so low into the muck of Yaqeen.

I am very much critical of DH and I oppose him on a lot of things. but he isn't wrong in everything he says and DH is right about yaqeen.

 

[Sophisticate]

I wish you well. It is clear you went through a lot and are looking for a place to belong. People find solace in different ways some which we do not fully understand. You were quite religious at one point. I hope those who have been unkind to you were not the impetus behind your decision. I won't lie a part of me hopes you are guided back. All we can do is pray for you.

 

[cooli3o]

Firstly proof the Athar are rightfully attributed to Umar.

فال الله تعالى: فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Among the fundamental principles of Islamic law, on which the scholars are in complete agreement, is that cases of necessity make prohibited stuff permissible.

If a hungry person eats a pig, blood or any of the forbidden foods he will not be blamed. So if a dying person steals something to save his life the hukm will not be applicable to him. This is a universal concept and the Sunnah of the prophet.

So even if it's true and Umar رضي الله عنه suspended the hukm of theft during a year of famine it's still in line with the principles of the Deen.

I never said it wasn't, nothing you said here is contradictory to what I said

 

[cooli3o]

(deleted the meme to be on the safe side as far as images)

all this just confirms everything myself and @AMusee have been saying about Yaqeen this whole time. this is a whole institute dedicated to watering down Islam. @cooli3o if it is true you used to be Salafi... I am amazed... it really hurts to think a Salafi could sink so low into the muck of Yaqeen.

I am very much critical of DH and I oppose him on a lot of things. but he isn't wrong in everything he says and DH is right about yaqeen.

one uses the fact that someone worked for yaqeen to disprove an argument is stupid, but if you would like to remain in your ignorance, that is fine by me, but Islam is not as black and white as these "salafi" scholars make it out to be

 

[cooli3o]

I will tke Ibn Hazms explanation of the Hadith over your weak minded analysis anytime.

thats not what ibn hazm said, he did not say take every single opinion Umar RA does, and that his ijtihaad is on the same level as the sunnah