GracieX3:
^^^
Come and see how Mohammed Hijab, the muslim apologist, has been destroyed

Xmuslim, pervertprophet, theguided

Destroyed indeed! Fact is that you don't use one side of a story to conclude. The Rizvan guy seemed to be hurt with series of profane languages used by Hijab when he himself kept calling him "Mojo", "Dumb" etc.

And there's a good point made by Hijab (in the video played by Rizvan) when he says that Rizvan shouldn't be bothered with profane languages since he claimed to be free speech champion. Fact is that the way these atheist guys go about attacking Islam, the Prophet of Islam and the Qur'an is not civil at all. And once they are fired back like Hijab did, they get offended. Is that not hypocrisy?

I remembered David Wood's series of mocking and denigration of Islam on his channels. If that is freedom of speech, then what is it when such people are paid back in same coin?

spiritualmubi:
Salaamun alaikum brother
haven't seen your posts for a long while now, hope all is good.

Wa alaykum salaam dear brother. Alhamdulillah, all is well by His grace. I hope you are well too. I'm not that frequent on nairaland any longer. I've been very busy with other activities.

Many thanks dear brother. Jazak'Allahu khayran

UMAR IBN AL-KHATTAB VS THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD IN THE BELIEF OF AHLU SUNNAH Part 1


Introduction:

In the hadith books of Ahlu Sunnah which resonates in their belief, Umar ibn al-Khattab was [one of such persons who were] used to be "inspired"[1] to the extent that "Allah concorded with his judgment" on three to four occasions.[2]


EXAMPLES OF SUCH INSPIRATION

1. Observance of veil

Imam al-Bukhari documents:


حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِيِّ، صلى الله عليه وسلم كُنَّ يَخْرُجْنَ بِاللَّيْلِ إِذَا تَبَرَّزْنَ إِلَى الْمَنَاصِعِ ـ وَهُوَ صَعِيدٌ أَفْيَحُ ـ *فَكَانَ عُمَرُ يَقُولُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم احْجُبْ نِسَاءَك.‏ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَفْعَل*ُ، فَخَرَجَتْ سَوْدَةُ بِنْتُ زَمْعَةَ زَوْجُ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَيْلَةً مِنَ اللَّيَالِي عِشَاءً، وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَةً طَوِيلَةً، فَنَادَاهَا عُمَرُ أَلاَ قَدْ عَرَفْنَاكِ يَا سَوْدَةُ‏.‏ حِرْصًا عَلَى أَنْ يَنْزِلَ الْحِجَابُ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ آيَةَ الْحِجَابِ‏.‏

Narrated A'isha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Madinah) to answer the call of nature at night. *Umar used to say to the Prophet (saw) "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so*. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha time and she was a tall lady. Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognised you, O Sauda (r.a)." He (Umar) said so, as he desired eagerly *until the verses of Al-Hijab* (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. *So Allah revealed the verses* of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).[3]


This is serious: [Umar used to say to the Prophet (saw) "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so]. What an effrontery!


The noble Prophet is introduced by His Lord thus:

He is the One Who sent a (Glorious) Messenger amongst the unlettered people from amongst themselves who recites to them His revelations and cleanses and purifies them and teaches them the Book and wisdom. Indeed, they were in open error before (his arrival). [surah al-Jumu’a: 2]

Indeed, Umar b. al-Khattab (among others who were once polytheist) was in open error before the “arrival” of the Prophet. How come he suddenly became the Prophet’s spiritual advisor and teacher, who teach him wisdom?


Besides Allah warns the believer:

_O you who believe, do not proceed ahead of Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing_ [surah al-Hujurat: 1]

Furthermore, the mother of the believer, Sauda bint Zam’a (radi’Allahu anha) was reported to have been on her way to the lavatory at Night. Why was Umar b. al-Khattab trailing her and her privacy? Was Sauda dressed immorally for Umar to be trailing her so as to tell the Prophet to let his wives be veiled? Aisha reported she was a tall lady. Obviously that was one characteristic feature Umar used to recognized her since it was at night. Is there a crime in physical tallness? Alas! Umar b. al-Khattab is not done yet. He continued trailing this innocent woman even when the verse of al-Hijab has been revealed.


Imam al-Bukhari also documents:

حَدَّثَنِي زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ خَرَجَتْ سَوْدَةُ بَعْدَ مَا ضُرِبَ الْحِجَابُ لِحَاجَتِهَا، وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَةً جَسِيمَةً لاَ تَخْفَى عَلَى مَنْ يَعْرِفُهَا، فَرَآهَا عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَقَالَ يَا سَوْدَةُ أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا تَخْفَيْنَ عَلَيْنَا، فَانْظُرِي كَيْفَ تَخْرُجِينَ، قَالَتْ فَانْكَفَأَتْ رَاجِعَةً، وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي بَيْتِي، وَإِنَّهُ لَيَتَعَشَّى‏.‏ وَفِي يَدِهِ عَرْقٌ فَدَخَلَتْ فَقَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي خَرَجْتُ لِبَعْضِ حَاجَتِي فَقَالَ لِي عُمَرُ كَذَا وَكَذَا‏.‏ قَالَتْ فَأَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ ثُمَّ رُفِعَ عَنْهُ وَإِنَّ الْعَرْقَ فِي يَدِهِ مَا وَضَعَهُ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ إِنَّهُ قَدْ أُذِنَ لَكُنَّ أَنْ تَخْرُجْنَ لِحَاجَتِكُنَّ

“A'isha reported that Sauda went out (in the fields) in order to answer the call of nature *even after the time when veil had been prescribed for women*. She had been a bulky lady, significant in height amongst the women, and she could not conceal herself from him who had recognized her. Umar b. Khattab saw her and said: "Sauda, by Allah, you cannot conceal yourself from us. Therefore, be careful when you go out.” She (A'isha) said, turned back upon hearing this callous address. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was at that time in my house having his evening meal and there was a bone in his hand. She (Sauda) returned and said: Allah's Messenger, I went out and Umar said to me so and so. She (A'isha) reported: At that point the revelation came to him and then it was over; the bone was in his hand and he had not thrown it and he said: "Permission has been granted to you that you may go out for your needs." [4]


Subhan’Allah! Obviously Umar b. al-Khattab was trailing this “bulky and tall” noble wife of the Prophet who was going privately at night to the lavatory. Has Umar forgotten the command of Allah:

_Say to the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Surely, Allah is well aware of the (works) which they are busy doing_ [sura al-Nur: 30]


QUICK QUESTIONS:

# So we ask: how exactly Allah concorded with Umar’s alleged judgment in the case of al-Hijab, O people of senses?

# And we ask: how was that a merit to Umar ibn al-Khattab at the expense of the holy Prophet?

# Why chosen to drag the noble Prophet Muhammad on the mud for Umar to be praised?

# Is sahih Bukhari and sahih Muslim still enjoy their polemic authenticity and infallibility?


To be continued in sha Allah


✒ Abdulwasi Olawale A.
………………………………………


*REFERENCES*

1. Sahih Muslim 2398 a
The Book of the Merits of the Companions
Book 44, hadith 34
 https://sunnah.com/muslim/44/34

2. Sahih Muslim 2399
The Book of the Merits of the Companions
Book 44, hadith 36
https://sunnah.com/muslim/44/36

3. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Ablution, ‘Chapter: The going out of women for answering the call of nature’, vol. 1, Book 4,  Hadith # 146.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/4/12

4. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of  ‘Prophetic commentary on the Quran’, vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 318; Arabic ref: Book 65, Page # 1205. Hadeeth # 4795.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65/317

TATBIR (BODYFLAGELLATION) IS HARAM IN SHI'A FIQH (ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE)

Surah Al-Hujraat, Verse 6:

O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done."


It has become a tradition that every year during Ashura commemoration, both western media and uninformed individuals will ignorantly or deliberately flood the internet with pictures and videos of _certain Shia_ with their practice of tatbir where sharp objects like knives, swords etc are used to injure themselves for blood to gush out, all in the name of mourning the greousome and barbaric killing of Imam Husein and his blessed companions.

Little do people know that some of these pictures and videos are:

1. Old pictures and videos but reposted every year to fool people

2. Some of the scene are choreographed and acted just like films are acted by the Hollywood and Nollywood actors

Besides, some Shia extremists do practice tatbir in truth but they do not represent Shia mainstream.

FACTS

# For a fact, tatbir (body flagellation) is Haram according to the Fatawa of the Shia leading scholars (dead or alive). For example,  here's the fatwa of Ayatullah Ali Khameini:

{[Q. Is hitting oneself with swords ḥalāl if it is done in secret? Or is your fatwā in this regard universal?

A: In addition to the fact that it is not held in the common view as manifestations of mourning and grief and it has no precedent at the lifetime of the Imams (a.s.) and even after that and we have not received any tradition quoted from the Infallibles (a.s.) about any support for this act, be it privately or publicly, this practice would, at the present time, give others a bad image of our school of thought. Therefore, there is no way that it can be considered permissible.]}

https://www.leader.ir/en/content/21984/Performing-tat%CC%A3b%C4%ABr-(qamazan%C4%AB)-secretly


# A website is dedicated to educate people on the history and Shia scholar's fatawa on tatbir declaring it HARAM (FORBIDDEN): http://tatbir.org/

Furthermore, 41 Shia Fatawa from various Shi'a scholars were put together in the same website: http://tatbir.org/?page_id=98

Shia mainstream knew tatbir to be haram and refrain from it, leaving only the extremists who called themselves Shia. However, those who chose to cause fitnat will stoop so low hiding popular and majority view on tatbir but display extreme view and practice to misguide and poison people's mind.

# The fact that tatbir is haram, this is the reason some Shia Ulama advice to donate blood at the hospitals for those in need of it, rather than participating in the barbaric practice of tatbir and zanjeer where blood is wasted.

LAST SHOT

99% of the world terrorists from Boko haram to ISIS and al-Qaeda with their heinous crimes against humanity, ALL of them with no exception profess Salafiyyah of Ahlu Sunnah. And today, the western world media have "succeeded" in synchronizing Sunnism or Ahlu Sunnah to terrorism because of these extremists and bad egg. Is such generalization accepted by Islam?

Quran says:

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 8:

"O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do."


Therefore, why would any rational human being and Muslim who believe in the above noble verse pack all the Shia together and ascribe such greousome and barbaric practice to them all?

Rashduct4luv:
I once discussed with a Shi'a imam in my area before who heard one of our lectures during Ramadan with a title related to "Ahl Sunnah wal Jam'ah". He thereafter called me and started a convo with me. He started with statements like "you know all the problem in Islam were caused by the Sahabah", "they are this and that" I just asked him if he was a Sh"i? And he replied asking me "Am i an Ahl Sunnah? And i said Yes! Yet he refused to answer that question.

This Imam is someone i'd known while growing up and never knew he was a Shi'a. It's only when it's Muharram Ashurah you'll see them with white men from Iran in the mosque.

Your post still stinks of the Sunni vs Sh'ia brouhaha and the hatred for the Sahaabahs as much as you are trying to avoid it.
It's like someone angered you somewhere or there's an incidence somewhere hence this write-up.

Where was that super story of yours happened? Who is the co-actor of that sensational movie?


Hatred of Sahabah? Hatred for what? Abeg, address the candid issue at the OP and stop the outdated propaganda. Oju ti la, ile ti mo.

SHI'AH AND THE SAHABAH OF THE HOLY PROPHET


INTRODUCTION

Few decades ago, the derogatory description of the Shi'a by the Salafiyyah of Ahlu Sunnah is, "those that believe angel Jubril made a mistake in giving Muhammad ibn Abdullah the Prophet-hood, instead of Ali ibn Abi Taalib."

Before this imaginary description could die down, few other descriptions and allegations were added. For example, "Shi'a are those that practice mut'ah (temporary marriage), they use taqiyah (dissimulation), they have their own Qur'an different from the general widely accepted Qur'an etc."

However, with the evolution of modern civilization in science and technology where information can be easily reached, some of the abovementioned fallacies and misconceptions  became vanished although the remnants still linger to this date.


TODAY'S BEST SELLING PROPAGANDA

If you ask any regular Ahlu Sunnah especially those of Salafiyyah sect to describe the Shi'a in one sentence, he will not hesitate to say, "those are people who used to abuse and curse the Sahabah and the wives of the noble Prophet." Others will even add that, "they believe the Sahabah turned kuffar (unbelievers) after the demise of the Prophet."

The central point of this description by the Salafiyyah is nothing but to appeal to the world that these sect (Shi'ah) could never have been part of the Muslim Ummah, and this fact will be established by another sympathetic appeal like: "imagine, they always abuse the Sahabah that compiled and preserved the Qur'an and Sunnah; the Sahabah that Allah says He has pleased with them all."

The abovementioned sympathetic appeals of the Salafiyyah are their strongest allegations against the Shi'a and no doubt this has worked for them like magic in demonizing the Shi'a especially in an environment with low access to real and sincere investigation.


USING THE YASIRIYYAH

The Shi'a world will never deny the fact that there is a certain deviant Shi'a group called "the Yasiriyyah" led by Yasir al-Habib and Alayaser with a vibrant satellite tv [in London and U.S respectively] who used to abuse and curse the Sahabah especially Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Aisha and Hafsah. In fact, the Salafiyyah in their description of the Shi'a always give reference to the YouTube videos of this "Shi'ah" group.


SALAFIYYAH DECEPTION I

While the Yasiriyyah videos are loved to be spread by the Salafiyyah in their bid to paint the Shi'a black, OPPOSING videos:

* where the same Yasiriyyah are abusing and cursing Shi'ah most famous figures and personalities like Ayatullah Khomeini, Ayatullah Khamenei, Ayatullah Sistani etc

* or videos where the Yasiriyyah were exposed of their excesses [guluw] by several notable Shi'ah scholars; for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbL9KHRZCSA


* or videos where Shi'a Maraji' [source of references] like Ayatullah Khamenei, Ayatullah Sistani etc have declared abusing and cursing of ANY Sahabah or wives of the Prophet as HARAM; for example:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ7gOUo

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/3905/Ayatollah-Khamenei-s-fatwa-Insulting-the-Mother-of-the-Faithful

... NONE of these opposing videos will ever receive publicity of the Salafiyyah since it doesn't suit their mission of propaganda against the Shi'a.


SALAFIYYAH DECEPTION II

The world known "Muslim" terrorists like ISIS, AL-QAEDA, BOKO HARAM etc are known to be of the Salafiyyah sect. Even the former Imam of the holy mosque [Ka'ba in Makah] Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani testified to the fact that DAESH (ISIS), al-QAEDA etc do not only share the same ideology of the Salafiyyah but are also using their books as references to their heinous crimes. Here's his video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

Interestingly, if you ask any Salafi individual or group about ISIS or Boko haram etc, he will deny of having anything to do with them and will not hesitate to label them as perverted group. If this is the case, why then do Salafiyyah love using another perverted group as source of reference to describe the Shi'a and their beliefs?


SHI'AH SOURCE OF REFERENCES

It is known in academic world that to know the beliefs of a group or sect or religion, one need to refer to its main book(s) of references or what the representatives of that group or religion say about their faith.

Some Salafiyyah have assumed [obviously with no verification] that Shi'a books of ahadith are replete in abusing and cursing the Sahabah. Some Salafiyyah scholars will even lie and fabricate what does not exist.

The obvious is there is no SINGLE authentic Shi'a hadith that abuse or curse any of the Sahabah or wives of the Prophet. And there is no SINGLE Shi'a representative that does such lowly undignified act. This is an open challenge to the Salafiyyah: bring one single Shi'a *authentic* hadith of their Imams that abuse or curse any of the Sahabah or wives of the Prophet?! In fact, authentic ahadith in Shi'a books are warning against being abusive.


SUNNI SOURCE OF REFERENCES

Authentic Ahlu Sunnah ahadith showed how Sahabah used to abuse, curse, fight and even kill themselves. Our intention is not to make this write up bulky otherwise we would have cite few examples. Nonetheless, Ibn Taymiyyah gives an example when he declares:


This was not the case for ‘Alī. This is because the MAJORITY of the Sahābah and Tābi’īn HATED, CURSED and FOUGHT him.

Source: Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat al-Qurtbah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. MuHammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 7, p. 137-138

According to the same Ahlu Sunnah authentic narration, it was a Sahabah by the name 'Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Udays al-Balawi al-Misri who murdered Uthman ibn Affan.

What the Ahlu Sunnah especially the Salafiyyah have in their books are enough to expose them. Unfortunately, such tactics is not in the interest of Islam and Muslim.


SHI'AH PROBLEM WITH THE CALIPHS [ABU BAKR, UMAR AND UTHMAN] AND CERTAIN SAHABAH

First, while the true Shi'a distance themselves from abusing and cursing these personalities, our main fracas and opposition to the Caliphs is that we do not accept their leadership after the Prophet. We believe the position of authority they assumed after the Prophet was usurped. On this, we welcome any Salafiyyah group or movement or Individual to civil debate or dialogue.


Second, the Shi'ah believes that as there were righteous and impeccable ones from amongst the Sahabah of the Prophet, there were also hypocrites, innovators and apostates from amongst them as stated by the Qur'an (surah Tawbah: 101, surah Munafiqun etc) and  Prophet's declarations:

Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab:

The companions of the Prophet (s) said, the Prophet said: "Some men from my Sahabah will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my Sahabah!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)
‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6586
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/81/174

Yet, Salafiyyah want to force their believes upon the Shi'a throat that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman Caliphates were legitimate and that ALL the Sahabah were righteous. The fact that Shi'a believe otherwise has led to their campaign against the Shi'a.


SHI'AH DO NOT FIGHT GUTTER GAMES

While the Salafiyyah continue to paint the Shi'a black with the slogan "the Shi'a are cursing the Sahabah," there are several tools the Shi'a can use to destroy the Sunnah acclamation of the Salafiyyah. For example, it is recorded in Ahlu Sunnah books:

* that chiefs of some sahabah that wanted to murder the Prophet were Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman

* that Umar ibn al-Khattab led some armed men to the house of Fatimah (the beloved daughter of the Prophet) and vowed to set her house ablaze if the sahabah that took the place as refuge [in order to avoid giving Abu Bakr oath of allegiance] did not come out. The chaos of that scene led to Fatimah's miscarriage and her eventual death

* that some of those the Ahlu Sunnah recognized as their Salaf (righteous predecessors) murdered, mutilated and decapitated the head of Husein [grandson of the Prophet] together with Prophet's family.

These are enough to sink the boat of the Salafiyyah, and nobody will care whether they believe it or not so long it is recorded in their books.

However, playing this kind of gutter game will do nothing for Islam and Muslims other than adding tension and fitnah that are already exist within the Muslim world.


FINAL NOTE

We plead to the Salafiyyah movement to stop causing fasad and fitnah in using propaganda tactics in their ceaseless and careless efforts to paint the Shi'a black and excommunicate them from the fold of Muslim Ummah.

We advice the Salafiyyah to take the path of academics and scholarship in engaging their opponents rather than using crude method by poisoning people's heart. They should learn from their Imam Adel al-Kalbani who rescinded from calling the Shi'a kuffar (disbelievers) [on the basis of rejecting the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman]. Here's his video interview:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YynKcm9ll3c&t=6s

Common problems that face the Muslim world are enough to face and fight compare to fighting ourselves and using propaganda against each other over issues that are not usul-deen [fundamentals of religion]. The more we fight each other, the more Muslims get weakened and vulnerable. If the differences between us cannot be resolved, then:

 Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 69:

Allah will judge between you on the day of resurrection with respect to that in which you differ."

Wa salam alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.

✒ Abdulwasi Olawale A.

IGNORANCE OR FANATICISM?
[Exposing wicked lies of Sheikh Abdul-Fatah Sarumi on Shi’ism]

This is a 33-page book divided into four (4) chapters.

Chapter one discusses the minimum requirements that makes a person Muslim [Shi'a].


Chapter two is about the identity of the Ahl al-Bayt with respect to the verse of purification.

The third chapter talks about wudu [ablution] with specification on wiping of feet as against the Sunni customary washing.


The last chapter is on the issue of nikkah al-Mut'ah [temporary marriage], it's genesis, legality and alleged prohibition.


✒ Abdulwasi Olawale A.

https://www.academia.edu/43700987/IGNORANCE_OR_FANATICISM

HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW? HIJAB IS NEITHER A PIECE OF CLOTH NOR A FASHION KIND OF DRESS!


CLAIM ONE: Hijab is an ancient Arab style of clothing.

REPLY: Qur'an warn the wives of the Prophet "... and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore..." [sura al-Ahzab: 59]

Had hijab/Jilbab was an ancient Arab style of clothing, why would this instruction be effected?

It is obvious the Arab women of yore display their fineries publicly but Islam instruct believing women saying "... and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers..." [sura an-Nur: 31]

With this establishment, how can Islamic Hijab be said to be Arab cultural dress of yore?


CLAIM TWO: Hijab is just a piece of cloth.

REPLY: Hijab isn't "just a piece of cloth". It is a command dress code for the Muslim women. Apart from sura Nur: 31 quoted above, here's another verse on Muslims' women dress code:


 Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 59:

O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful"


So, it is a weird and distant claim that "Hijab or Jilbab is just a piece of cloth".



CLAIM THREE: Even in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Iran Saudi Arabia etc non-Muslims' tourists use Hijab, so what's the big deal?


REPLY: First, those non-Muslims who use Hijab were only "compelled" by the law of those lands. They don't use it with the intention of Islamic viewpoints.


Second, a non-Muslim is free to use Hijab or Jilbab (as we could see the Catholic Nuns, the Jains etc) but obviously their aims and objectives is quite different from that of Muslim women although the two can knowingly or unknowingly agree in protecting the society from the harm, evil and corruption of flagrant sexual display of women and the protection of women from being made as sexual advertising objects.


Third, while a non-Muslim woman is free to use Islamic version of Hijab or Jilbab, she must not impersonate Islam or Muslims as a result. This is where it becomes sensitive. Imagine a commercialized alawo woman (African traditional religion who worship satan and other gods) using Hijab?! While as an individual she might not be rebuked but going by her commercial activity and nature of her job as fetish healer, people will be confused and Islamic value being a monotheistic religion will be smeared.



CLAIM FOUR: Where's the African identity if an Afrcian Muslim woman dressed with "Arabian cultural dressing"?

REPLY: Again, Islamic Hijab or Jilbab is not Arabian cultural dressing. Furthermore, Islam respect people's cultures so long it's not barbaric (like dressing naked, killing for rituals etc). Therefore, there is no exact specification of cloth mentioned in the holy Qur'an while instructing Hijab/Jilbab; rather, only general rules were instructed which can be summarized below:

# A Muslim woman should cover her body from head to toe

# A Muslim woman should draw a large garment over herself; therefore, tight-fitting and transparent dress is completely ruled out

# A Muslim woman should not display her fineries and ornaments publicly (except to her husband, father etc as specified in the holy Qur'an).

Fact is, any dress that WILL NOT be seductive, NOT tight-fitting to reveal a woman's shape, NOT transparent and that will be able to cover women's bodily parts is welcome by Islam; be it African style or European or Arab style. A woman who wears a "spaghetti" dress or fit tighting trouser and put a piece of head cover called "hijab" has obviously not use Islamic version of Hijab. A woman who uses for example the Yoruba traditional "iro and buba" while her legs, quarter of her hands, her chest expose has not used Islamic version of Hijab.


Hijab is a Muslim woman's pride! If you don't like it, do not ignorantly attack those who passionately embrace it.



✒ Abdulwasi Olawale A.
seeabdwasi@gmail.com

YakubuA:


OK Logical Professor. I still stand with what I said logic is based on premises and in some cases may not even have reality example? some mathematical equations. If you are ignorant of this fact then you know nothing about logic and google is your friend don't be lazy.

On the other hand rational thinking is based on reasons and reality. And I hope this help you to understand the difference.

As for the Hadith all can see that the level of your ignorance is second to none.
The Hadith is very clear The Messenger said the veil will be lifted and all the Sahabah understood that when a veil is lifted you will see what the veil conceal. No any other interpretation is needed because there is no ambiguity otherwise the Sahabah would have asked the Prophet to explain further. Beside there was no single Sahabi that disagree with this understanding.
So the onus is rather on you to bring one single Sahabi that disagree with this understanding.

If you are confused the Ummah is not confused.

# Now it is clear you use Google to search what is not clear to you. I am a student of logic. I don't Google search for what logic is.


# You only continue to show your compound ignorance, dear brother saying logic is about premises. To understand an ilm (knowledge), you need to state it's tahrif (definition) and it's mawdu' (subject matter). Only then, you will know what you are dealing with. So, what is the tahrif and mawdua of mantiq?


# Another faulty qadiya of yours is "rational thinking is based on reasons and reality". Don't suffocate yourself with words in order to cover your compound ignorance. Rational thinking is the same thing as reasoning, and anything that is rational is logical. Simple.

If you read Qur'an to understand (and not like himaar ya'milu asfar), you will realize that even Qur'an use lots of muqadimat (Premise) before it reached a natija (result) to prove things. That is one branch of Logical arguments.

Mr premises, muqadimat is not subject matter of mantiq and using "premises" is just a part in Mantiq.


# Lastly, on the hadith: Why do you keep on running away from the Qur'an? And why is it difficult for you to understand an hadith's meaning in the light of Qur'an?

Again, you are the one that made a claim that "sahabah" understood the hadith literally. Why are you running away from providing just a single evidence in the book of your hadith to back your statement? How can you ask me to provide evidence otherwise when I did not make such claim? I don't make silly and filthy and irrational statement. I only make statement I can substantiate with prove.

Don't run away from your spoonfed statement. We challenge you to prove it with authentic hadith that sahabah understood the hadith literally. You don't even fear Allah forging lies and confidently arrogant on it.

Rilwayne001:


Wow, really sorry for your loss brother. May Allah grant him eternal rest.

@ Empiree, Albaqir, and Lanrexlan do you guys have any say on this topic?

In my own ignorant I think nothing is attached. It's just as a result of the bond between you two when he was alive. Even if you were not close with him when he was alive, the basic idea that he was your dad is enough bondness on its own, and the brain will always find a way to bring his picture to your dream over a course of particular time before it stops coming again.

I think seeing a loved one in a dream is more easier if one dreams a lot and tends to remember when one's awake, plus also the kind of attention and your believe on dreams.

I remember as a kid in about 11 years when I lost my grandma. I see her in my dreams almost every night. She's always always coming back from a journey looking beautiful. And everyone in the house would be joyous and telling her how much they miss her and all. For close to 5 years straight after her death, I see her in my dreams intermittently.

The there's a younger cousin of mine that died about 4years after my grandma. We weren't that close but I know him quite well. But once, I saw him crying profusely in my dream. I tried calling him but my voice would not come out in the dream. He crossed a large express road so easily that I marveled on how he did it. I couldn't cross the road because the road was too busy in the dream. He looked back at me one final time with tears full in his eyes, at that point in time I was horribly scared that my heart was pumping hard when I woke up. I had no body to interpret the dream to me but I think it was logical enough.

In essence back then, I used to dream a lot too. But I guess in the course of time, I abandoned some beliefs, especially the ones that has to give some sort Of spiritual meanings to dream. I'm not sure if there's any spirituality attached to dreams or maybe the brain is just collaging some pictures in our memories and playing tricks on us, because I got to know how powerful and deceptive our brains can be atimes. Ever since I abandoned spirituality of meanings to dream, I hardly have any sorts of dream. I do dream but I hardly pay attention to them, hence I don't even remember whenever I have one. The horror ones stopped coming too.

Nevertheless I'm open to learning.

Cc: lal.asticalala, S.eun

Dear brother,

First, Ramadan Mubarak to you. Hope you are doing well by His grace.

Second, dreams is part of human experiences so trying to "run away" or "take it lightly" is running away from reality.

Third, both western thinkers and religious thinkers have written a lot about dreams. Some give it meaning while some disregard it.

Fourth, Islam has its own viewpoints on dreams.

It is very interesting the way some scientists - psychologists have tried to describe dreams as a state of mind, an accumulated mental pictures that is not real. That is obviously a part of dreams. Obviously there are also clear and truthful dreams. How would you know a true dream from false or imaginary dreams?


True dreams are not as a result of mental reactions or state of mind. Human is of two entities - body which is composed of matter and soul which is immaterial (mujarad). Material body is an obstacle to soul's flourishment and development. Some people even denied the existence of soul but there are unique arguments to prove it's existence as far as philosophy is concern. Till date, the hardest problem in neuroscience is Subjective Consciousness. Scientists have no explanation for It.

It is this immaterial soul that undergo "dreams" seeing things in metaphysical world, a world beyond time and space. Therefore, the ability to see happenings before it even happens, etc.


In short, if you see your dead ones in a bad state, Islamic prescription is to perform dua and give sadaqat on their behalf. It goes as thawab (rewards) to them and alleviate their position.

AbuTwins:


This moniker is fond of "breaking away"from the truth. Despite the Qur'an verse you quoted corroborating the Hadith OP quoted you still brought up your "Salafy" enemy tag.

Anyways we reject your Suffi-Shiite position!

Where's the "Truth"? How does the verse I quoted corroborated the hadith you chose to interpret literally?

Of course, we need to put things in their perspectives especially when salafi wants to monopolize Islamic teachings and understanding.

Take a look at the OP's deception. Lots of stones were first thrown saying, "Jahmiyah, ash'ariya, sufi etc said this and that", then, he cunningly bring his own ideology and label it as "correct".
That is not only silly but very unjust.

There are many thoughts and understanding among the Muslims. If you are to reject an understanding, you simply have to state reasons against it. only then, you can state your own thought which you felt is correct, also with prove.

So, I haven't go off track stating the so-called correct view of the OP is salafiyah thought and understanding. The ball is in your court to defend your understanding. I have defended mine.

alfarouq:

Humans in the afterlife will adopt a form different from the one in this world, they will not get sick, die, or become old. They will also live forever.
We should refrain from interpretation of hadith differently from the way the sahabas who studied, learn and relate with the Rasul (pbuh). May Allah grant us understanding

Yes of course human in the afterlife will adopt a "new form" (in Qur'anic terminology) YET human will still remain "mumkin al-Wujud" with limitations. Therefore, your argument that human will not sick, die, become old etc does not solve the problem of "seeing Allah" with our vision. In fact, your point is ba'eed (distant).


# You are also challenged to bring one sahabi in an authentic hadith that interpreted the above hadith literally as you do and claimed such interpretation was the intention of Rasulullah (salalallahu alayhi wa ahli). Lobatan.

Qur'an is crystal clear that no vision can grasp Him. Therefore, it is in this submission of the Qur'an that you interpret the above hadith. Yet, you sideline Qur'an and formulate a literal meaning of the above hadith. Prophet will never contradict his Lord.

YakubuA:


No you are wrong logic is not innate but rational thinking is innate. The Qur'an did talk to us logically to understand our creator but rationally because ability to think rationally is innate in every human being.
If you are confused between logic and rational keep in mind always that logic always begin with a premise and you have to go to school to learn logic but rational thinking is innate and does not require that.

As for the Hadith what the Messenger said is the Truth and it was the understanding of the Sahabah hence is not subject to your own interpretation.

Now I can say it categorically that you know nothing about logic. The moment you keep on saying logic is about premises, then I know your limitation. Besides, which rational thinking comes without premises? Premises are foundation for result of an arguments.

For your information there is no difference between logic and rationality.


# Bring one sahabi in an authentic hadith that interpreted the above hadith literally as you do and claimed that exactly was the thought of the Prophet?

Please refrain from statement you can not defend.

YakubuA:


One of the names of Allah (swt) is Alkhaliq. The one who creates out of nothing. Please go and verify this.

Al-Khaaliq simply means The Creator. It is you that interpolated it with your thought of "out of nothing" to suit your belief.

Again, you are challenged to bring a Quranic or "rational" prove substantiate your sentence that "Allah created everything from nothing". I stand by my qadiya that "Nothing (adam) can come out of nothing (adam)". Only Existence (wujud) can come out of existence (wujud). Nothing does not exist. Existence can NEVER ever come out of nothing.

YakubuA:


First I did not say logic I say rational because logic is based on premises ( if then etc) which is not the best way of deducing facts. So please keep it rational not logical. Beside that when the Qur'an discuss this issue it encourage us to think rationally not logically.

Secondly the Qur'an, in its entirety was revealed, to our beloved Prophet (saw) from Allah(swt) and the Messenger (saw) understood it more than any human in this universe. He (the messenger) explained to us that believers in paradise will see Allah (swt)

Narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh (266) from Suhayb, according to whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“When the people of Paradise enter Paradise, Allaah will say, ‘Do you want anything more?’ They will say, ‘Have You not brightened our faces, admitted us to Paradise and saved us from Hell?’ Then the veil will be lifted and they will not have seen anything more dear to them than looking upon their Lord, may He be glorified and exalted. This is what is meant by ‘even more.’” Then he recited the verse (interpretation of the meaning):

“For those who have done good is the best reward and even more (i.e. having the honour of glancing at the Countenance of Allaah)”

[Yoonus 10:26]

There is no contradiction with the fact that we cant see Allah in this life but we can, in shaa Allah, see Him in Jannah because this life is different from the life in Jannah and the transition between the two is death.

# What is logic and what is rational thinking? Logic is innate in man. Standardized logic is a tool to help rational thinking from error.

# You have limited the meaning and understanding of the above hadith to a LITERAL understanding. And that has always been thr biggest problem of the salafi school.

"Looking upon their Lord" should not be interpreted literally. Again, Qur'an is clear, "No vision can grasp Him". Whether in this world or the next, human will continue to assume a kind of "vision". And anything that can be grasp with vision is limited and obviously has a form (surat). That is not Allah. Therefore, "seeing Allah" is by the heart experiencing His ma'rifat. On this earth, we "see" via various of His manifestations. In the next world, those manifestations will be more clearer and obvious since human will be beyond his 5 state of senses.

YakubuA:


Rationally it is impossible to see Allah(swt) in this life for the following reasons:

Allah created everything (the entire universe, including man and life) from nothing.

Do you have a prove to substantiate your qadiya that "Allah created everything from nothing"? This statement is incorrect. Nothing can come out of nothing.

AbuTwins:
My Young Daughter Constantly asks me, ‘Why can’t we see Allah in this life?’ – Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzan

An Exclusive Translation for Sisters Upon Al-Istiqaamah

Shaykh Al-Fawzan was asked on behalf of a young girl the following question: [1]

My young daughter constantly asks me, ‘Why can’t we see Allah in this life?’ What is the best answer to give her as she is young?

The Shaykh (May Allah preserve him) said,

Say to her, ‘This is because you are not able to see him [in this life]. You would burn to pieces.’ It is not possible for a created being to see Allah in this life. Whereas in the Hereafter Allah gives the believer the strength and ability so he is able to see Allah. Yes.

In another place Shaykh Al-Fawzan mentions: [2]

“The Jahmiyyah and the Mu’tazilah, all of them, reject Ar-Ru’yah (the seeing of Allah) in the Hereafter. Another group exists who say, ‘Verily Allah is seen in this life and in the Hereafter.’ This is a position that is held by some of the Sufis.

The third position, and this is the true and correct stance, is that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic will be seen in the Hereafter by the people of paradise as is found in the ahadeeth that have been narrated upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and which have reached the level of Mutawaatir (such a great number of ahadeeth it is not possible that they have all been invented). However, in this life, then verily Allah cannot be seen because the people cannot endure and survive seeing Him, the Exalted in this life. When Moosa (peace and blessings be upon him) asked to see Allah, the Exalted, in this life, Allaah said:

“And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.” [Allāh] said, “You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me.” But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, “Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.” [Al-A’raaf: 143]

The solid mountain became dust due to the Greatness of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. So how can a human being withstand seeing Allah [in this life]?”
References:

(1) sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=119604
(2) Shaykh Al-Fawzan’s explanation of Al-Haa’iyyah, p. 78-79
Taken from http://uponistiqaamah..com

https://abdurrahman.org/2012/09/12/my-young-daughter-constantly-asks-me-why-cant-we-see-allah-in-this-life/

This kind of understanding is defective. It's neither logical nor in line with Qur'anic understanding.


First, we cannot see Allah because anything seen is limited and has a form. Allah is far above such descriptions. He is unlimited and "nothing is like unto Him" [sura ikhlas].

Quran capped it by saying, "No vision can encompass Him but He encompasses all visions..."


Second, if the Sufi [People of Tasawwuf - Islamic mysticism] say we can see Allah in this world and the next world, they NEVER meant seeing with this two eyes. They meant "seeing" Him with the "eyes" of your heart. And that is real ma'rifat Allah.


Third, as per the so-called third opinion which the scholar boastfully said it's the right opinion, that's nothing but arrogance and exaggeration. We know such view to be Salafi view. And it is ridiculous based on the first point.

No religion was ever more fertile in crimes than Christianity. From Abel’s murder to the torture of [Jean] Calas [1762], there is not any line of its history that is not bloody.
— Diderot, Salon de 1762, §42



We should always limit ourselves to the following historical truth: The Muslims’ lawgiver was a powerful and terrifying man, who established his dogmas by his courage and by his weapons; yet his religion became merciful and tolerant. Christianity’s divine founder lived in humility and peace, and preached forgiveness of offenses; but owing to our furious madness, his holy and sweet religion became the most intolerant and most barbarous of all.
— Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs, chap. vii


Source: Philippe Buc, "Holy war, martyrdom, and terror Christianity, violence, and the West" pg. 67

Then there is the Christian hobby of character assassination against the Prophet Muhammad. When you pinpoint the fact that Christian rulers used violence, they would deny or absolve Christianity. The normal reply has been that Christianity spread peacefully within the Levant, its birthplace, even if it later on spread to Europe and elsewhere through forced conversions. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity obtained its majority status, first, because Constantine adopted the faith and imposed it on his subjects throughout the Roman Empire. And then, his successors spread it further into pagan Europe, again through brute force and destroying pagan temples and criminalizing pagan rituals. Upon closer examination, we observe that the Prophet of Islam preached in Makkah, his birthplace for 13 years without the use of force. He succeeded in gaining thousands of followers through preaching despite the fact that he was persecuted. The pagan elites were alarmed since the idols kept in the holy Kaabah were a source of revenue for them and pilgrims from far and wide came for that purpose. Therefore the preaching of the Prophet of Islam against idol worship threatened their economic status. He was physically harmed, insulted and they went as petty as placing animal intestines on his back while he prostrated in prayers and throwing garbage on his path. He then fled from Makkah after they plotted to assassinate him, in his birthplace to Yathrib.

The people of Yathrib peacefully converted to Islam, wholesale and embraced the Prophet as their own and went on to change the name of their city from Yathrib to Medinatul Nabi (the city of the Prophet) in his honour. While in Medina, he was still chased and they plotted yet again to wipe him off, since Makkans were relocating in droves to join the new faith of Muhammad (s) in Medina. Such unrelenting persecution would rightfully prompt self defense, espeicially because the Makkans started drawing blood and destroyed lives and properties of the nascent Muslim community members. There are many instances where the Prophet would prefer forgiveness, forbearance and protecting his enemies, after they surrender, than vengeance.

I am not a proponent of conquests. Even though the Sunni caliphs that came after the Prophet conquered far and wide, they still promoted pluralistic societies. Christian philosophers and scientists contributed to the growth of learning and science im Baghdad and Damascus during the Islamic Golden Age. It took the Levant and Egypt many centuries to attain Muslim majority status. That reflects the fact that there were no conversions at sword point that mischievous Christian missionaries tout. In Muslim Spain or Andalus, half of the population under Muslim rule were Christians and Jews. This even enabled a later return of Christian rule to Iberia through force. Had the Muslim rulers imposed religious cleansing, a return of Christian rule to Spain would have been harder, if not impossible. The return of Christian rule led to the inquisition and the expulsion of not only the Muslim population, but also Jews, who once thrived in Muslim ruled Spain. When the cleansing of pagan Europe and Muslim Spain, among other atrocities for forced conversion to Christianity are visited on history pages, even the most brutal contemporary terror groups in Muslim countries that follow the Takfiri ideolody of the tiny minority of Sunni Muslims would blush in shyness. After all said and done, Christianity is "pissful" but Islam is "violent".

On the other hand, while the missionary might concede that Christian rulers were also bloody, they dont want to see that even when we examine the ills of the Sunni Muslims caliphs, their ills were far less. Only Christianity, with the consent of the early church fathers, converted all of pagan Europe mostly by the sword. The Battle of Frigidus, fought between a Pagan army resisting Christianity and a Christian army, was the decisive battle that cemented Christian dominance over paganism in Europe. Often times, when Muslims want to hit back with facts, they are blind to the fact that Europe, which became the centre of Christianity, was once entirely pagan. How did an entire continent of paganism adopt a Middle Eastern religion called Christianity if not through persecution and brutality? Quick web search of on Christianization of pagan Europe, the persecution of the pagans under the Roman Empire after the adoption of Christianity by Constantine (one ruler who changed the course of history) and forced conversion in pagan Europe would yield links that contain shocking historical facts which expose how mercilessly Christianity was spread in pagan Europe. An entire country of Spain was cleansed, some centuries later, by the use of force and Christianity was imposed. The Philippines and Mozambique had a similar case. Muslims were wiped out and Christianity was imposed.


Then, while Christian apologists pretend Christianity is a very peaceful religion, not just in actions but also on texts, we find violence in Christian scripture. It is only in the Christian New Testament we find verse of the sword (Luke 22:36-38) and verse of killing (Luke 19:27) while the word "sword" doesn’t appear once in the Quran. Then, we read a verse in Luke 14:23 promoting compulsion in religion. While the Quran unequivocally states that "let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256); "Let those who will believe, and those who will disbelieve" (18:29); "To you your religion and to me mine" (109:6). A whole Christian saint, St. Augustine even used Luke 14:23 to justify the use of force to spread Christianity. When normally Muslims use the genocide, wars and crimes from the OT, Christians would object in a programmed way that the Old Testament does not concern their faith. The Muslim, in a bid to counter is most times unaware of what has been concealed from Christian history. When we dig into history, we see that the continent from which Christianity later spread to rest of the world had its own very nations and tribes forcefully converted into a Middle Eastern religion through the sword. Roman emperor, Mr Constantine experienced, what can be understood as a shooting star in the sky, which he took for a sign and he thought he was inspired and that led to his conversion to Christianity (a conversion which historians doubt its sincerity or sincere motives) and therefore he imposed his newly found Christian faith on his empire and subjects wholesale; and then his successors converted an entire continent of pagan Europe, largely through brute force. So I am only left to believe that in word and in deed, Christianity is way more violent than Islam.


While Islam limits use of force to self defense as evident in the verse of permission to fight, Luke 14:23 promotes compelling others to the faith. In fact, there is no comparison. I am not even talking about other instances of colonization, the Transatlantic slave trade, the conquistadors, and the bloody sectarian wars among Catholics and protestants across Europe in the Middle Ages. I'm not even referring to two world wars fought by Christian nations among themselves and countless American bombings, use of nuclear weapons on Japan and invasions and occupations of other nations.

...cont

Anonymous writes:

The Most Violent Face of the Christian Faith: the Forgotten History of Forced Conversions in Pagan Europe:


If you want to make criticism, then, you must pick out certain topics or events or incidents to expand on. You just cant brandish arguments that are not centred on any acts worthy of criticism. Or make claims based on what Christian missionaries have formulated as convenient half truths to proselytize and market their faith. For example, in our time, when it comes to Iran, yes, I sympathize with Iran, not because Iran is the power base of Shia Islam, but for reasons that any left leaning liberal westerner would or might also use to defend Iran. That is not to say I don't have things I disagree with Iran on.


Like any country or system, the Islamic Republic has its advantages and its disadvantages for different people. But when it comes to the West, and particularly the unjustified ill treatment the US administrations over the centuries have meted on Iran and the Iranian people, I must sympathize with Iran, even if only for the sake of our shared humanity. And the very things any liberal wouldn't like on the details of Iranian government policies - like telling people what haircut to style their hair and previously telling women not to attend football matches until that prohibition was recently rescinded- are not the reasons the US is placing crippling and inhumane sanctions on Iran. Those issues are not enough to even beat the drums of war against Iran. There are countries with worse human rights records and more backward and unjust and even inhumane and oppressive regimes with acts like head chopping and public executions, but the US doesn't see anything wrong with them. They are even allies. So this is the hypocrisy that would make any person with an atom of humanity to sympathize with the Iranians. It becomes evident that the US problem with Iran is not religion, or even human rights. Rather, it is economic interests and dominance. The Iranians dont want to buy hundreds of billions of American weapons like some other countries and doesn't want to compromise on its sovereignty by housing foreign soldiers on its soil.


When it comes to religion, there is the text and there are the acts. Missionaries have not only criticized Sunni Muslim rulers, who I also criticize, but also, they want to prove that Islam is inherently violent, and evil and promotes violence through its texts, and in fact, their crafty ones have gone as far as stating that Islam was established by a terrorist prophet.


Islam makes it beyond doubt that it isn’t a pacifist religion and it is not a violent religion at the same time. Islam is a religion of justice and mercy at the same time. That means self defense in the face of oppression and bullying is sacred. Resorting to or the use of force in the Quran was not indiscriminate and it even had a starting point through the revelation of the permission to fight Quran verse. In that verse (Quran 22:39-40), even the conditions of when to fight back are listed. Then in verses 2:193-194, the use of force is only limited against enemy combatants and not against enemy civilians. Further, Muslims are told to embrace non Muslims who haven't caused us harm or hurt and we should show them justice and kindness through Quran verse 60:8.

...cont.

AlBaqir:


Abi o. Yet we have a clear hadith which says, "Fatima is the leader of all women of paradise".


Whoever forged that hadith of "10-jannah-sahabah" has forgotten that Quran is crystal clear in Paradise dispensation when it says:

Surah Al-Bayyina, Verse 7 - 8:

(As for) those who believe and do good, surely they are the -best of men.

Their reward with their Lord is gardens of perpetuity (Jannah) beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein for ever; Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him; that is for him who fears his Lord.

# This ayah throws Jannah open for whoever meet those criteria.

Sadaqallahu al-azeem

U.S. of A in Corona-style. If it is bombs of any type and grade, that cosmetic government will boast of it and even wreck any nation. Now, to save lives has been hell of a job!

Paul MacDonald
@pkmacdonald
This is crazy: Pompeo and Grenell reportedly arguing that coronavirus has created window of opportunity for direct strike on a weak and divided Iran.
https://nytimes.com/2020/03/21/world/middleeast/trump-iran-iraq-coronavirus-militas.html

But have you ever give it a thought that the command of our Lord in His glorious book is "... wipe a part of your head and FEET..."?

Ablution at any circumstance has nothing to do with socks. It's as simple as that.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OBJECTIONS AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON CERTAIN ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE BOOK “SALAFIYYAH ON A GRAND SCALE” WRITTEN BY SHEIKH IBN TAOFEEQ ABDUL AZEEZ

You can download the pdf here:
https://www.academia.edu/41958276/THE_AXE_OF_IBRAHIM

Mother of American soldier stationed at Ain al Assad base (Iraq) during the Iranian missile retaliation cries on TV that she hasn't heard from her only son for a week since attack and doesn't know if he is dead or alive


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HLHPcZYF6U