₦airaland Forum

Zawiyat Sofwat El-Islam Maolid 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bb5R7wSpEg

Annunaki:
I guess all our islamist have scampered off this thread having exhausted the puny ammunition they though they could fight annunaki with. Imagine trying a man's war with boy's toy guns I say bring it on, I am annunaki and I will take you to the cleaners. Nobody that is daft enough to accept an armed robber, paedophile, rapist and murderer as a prophet is intelligent enough to engage me in a discussion and not be thoroughly humiliated by the time I finish tearing him/her apart.

Sir, i took my time to go through this thread. You obviously did not answer op's concern. I thank God you finally opened up your true doctrine. You contradict Scholar8200 who debated trinity with me a while back and he "proved" trinity from old testament.

However, op is not asking you about trinity. Concentrate on the topic, please.

That 6-storey building in Kenya appears to be a waste of money. I dare not live there.

Sheikh Abdul Wahab Zubair Al-Gamawy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KedP7S3d3RY

BETATRON:
lol..nice...first question is...are there no women in basra?

Indeed there plenty other women in Basra. Remember banishment was his last option. He first shaved his head, but it only made him better looking. So he exiled him to Basra lest the women be tempted by him.

As-Sarkhasi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mabsoot (9/45):

If it is proven (in a story) that a person was banished, then this is by way of achieving a purpose and interest, not by way of applying a hadd punishment. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) banished the effeminate man from Madinah, and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from Madinah when he heard a woman saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?” So he banished him, although good looks do not dictate that one should be banished; rather he did that in the public interest".

The greater of two evil may be warded off you said...now "How is banishing a handsome man to another land( where there exists women) a mean of warding off the greater of two evils....

Further elucidated in Tafseer al-Aloosi which may answer your concern that arent women in Basra as well?. The scholar said: "If it is said: 'The women of Basra would be tempted by him after he moved there, so what should we do? We have only transferred the problem from one place to another, and we have not dealt with the root of the problem!'


The answer is:

Firstly: banishing him from his homeland and exiling him in a way that looks like a punishment would cause the motive of fitnah (temptation) in his heart andin the heart of others to be weakened, and it will teach the people to resist whims and desires, and will serve as a condemnation of immorality. If the people at the time of ‘Umar – whom the Shaytaan feared and was afraid of encountering him – realized that this man was only banished because of fear of fitnah, they would take precautions and be on guard against being tempted by him. So it is as if it was said to the people of Basra: I have banished this man to your land so that he will not be resident in the same city as me, so beware of being tempted by him.

Other thought is, the one who is in exile is a stranger and is not like a resident, for he is in a strange land where he will be distracted by his own affairs or by working and earning a living, which will keep him away from the life of ease and luxury that he used to enjoy in his homeland, when he was among his family and clan. This will reduce his good looks and distract him from taking care of himself and of his appearance.

he should have made things easy for nasr and the women by simply killing nasr ibn hajjaj.

Is this your personal judgement if you were in Umar's shoes?. Arent you more brutal than him now?. killing Nasr ibn hajjaj for being too handsome?. Yours brutal pass Umar

The us didn't banish the woman to nigeria or any other countries(which in effect will also be detrimental to the economy of those countries),,they thought her a lesson and after serving her punishment she will return to her home and this in turn will serve as a warning to other citizens of the state....now the u.s here punished the "criminal" but nasr didn't commit a crime did he?

In the eyes of the law, yes, she committed offence. But I am saying in the eyes of underdeveloped countries like Nigeria, whether it is criminal offence or not in the US, it wont make sense to any Nigerians for punishing the woman. The same way it doesn't make sense to you to send handsome man out of his homeland.

Why has umar left the lustful woman and decided to punish the innocent nasr?

Again, it is not punishment. It was most likely in favor of Nasr himself. remember those days, they have more taqwa than us. They fear shaytan and all that. From the story, it looks like Nasr himself was hiding from women and he would see that as satanic influence. From the woman's statement she asked: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”

From her statement, it looks like multiple women are chasing the dude and he's trying to escape from them and fortunately, Umar fulfilled his thought

What message and lesson has umar passed with this judgment.?

preventive measures

Dorisanice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAw9Yhpercc&list=PLOkIAKuXQ4rZaJNqJ_hOOfksyRw0kEBjI

this is truly hilarious

The fat dude almost fall on he was salivating so bad.

Lagos Under Attack


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmC70aEXXpA


The Avengers cause mayhem and destruction in Lagos.

Lagos Under Attack


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmC70aEXXpA


The Avengers cause mayhem and destruction in Lagos.

To Celebrate Or Not: This speaker stand on neutral ground to proof both sides

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1R8Cv5li_c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XsR4vON-qQ

This dude was already aware of this product back in 2013.

adegbitetunji:
We will appreciate it if you can get a picture of it and show is here.

Hajji Mufutau


...There you go sire...ama get the company making this stuff in NG...we used it in abuja...am sure the company or her retail outlet is in abuja...if u ever use that stuff...damn its d bomb...lightweight, flexible design, easy to install...less $$, less material...less load on the building...concrete cornice sucks $$$, add extra load, its not flexible, u can't change in future without jeopardizing d structural detail of the building...etc

I need infos for polystyrene facial companies in nija. Anyone know of any to give?

Can you please provide me with names of contact info of companies in nigeria that sell polystyrene facial. Thanks

BETATRON, on banishment, first all, put aside 21st century mentality. So long as you think from that perspective, it will never make sense to you. Second, this is misdemeanor figh issue. It is not hudud. Nasr b. Hajjaj was not banished for 'crime'. It is rather about preventing greater evil due to this statement as recorded:


Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) was patrolling in Madinah when he heard a woman chanting some verses of poetry in which she was saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?”


We know in Islam there is no separation of "church and state". Umar hearing such statement in the street of Medina of-course caught his attention. Any lady can utter same phrase today in the street of Lagos and no one cares. Again, please dont read this narration from 21st century minds. Even back then, it is not just to banish someone solely for their looks. It is figh issue. It is clear that this incident occured due to overwhelming narrations by different scholars even Ibn Taymiyah in his Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/552, 15/313, 28/109, 28/371), Ibn al-Qayyim in I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/284), al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Isaabah (6/382), Ibn Muflih in al-Adaab ash-Shar‘iyyah (3/132), and others.


From the fiqh point of view, this story comes under the heading of giving precedence to the public interest over private interests; allowing undermining of a personal interest for the purpose of protecting the public interest is a must in general terms.

Badr ad-Deen az-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Manthoor fi’l-Qawaa‘id al-Fiqhiyyah (1/348-349):


Ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam said: They were unanimously agreed that the greater evil may be warded off by means of the lesser. Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said: One of the holistic general principles is that the greater of two evils may be warded off by allowing the lesser, if there is no option but to allow one of them to occur, and that the greater of two interests may be served by foregoing the lesser, if only one option is inevitable. I mean: this is a general rule, but it is not absolute and is not applicable in all cases.


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Nasr ibn Hajjaaj was not banished because he had done anything wrong or committed some immoral deed for which he was to be punished; but among the women there were some who were tempted by him, so ‘Umar issued orders that something be done to reduce his stunning good looks. By moving him from his homeland, his ambition and physical strength would be weakened, and he would feel that he was being punished. This is by way of protective measures for fear of immorality and infatuation before they take place; it was not by way of punishment."


End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (15/313).



Again, no matter how we explain this, it would not make sense to anyone in modern century. This simple thing, if at all, should only be viewed in the lense of average silly rules passed in our modern time by govts. For instance, in the US, some states you are not allowed to grow crops in your backyard. You could go to jail for that. A woman was caught growing crops in her yard some years back, upon sighted by police, she was arrested and sentenced years behind bars. She thought it was a joke (I thought too). She wasn't even aware of the law. This happened in a developed country. Now, if a person in a developing or underdeveloped country like nigeria hears this, it doesn't make sense. The reason being that you are free to grow anything you want in your backyard in nigeria.

Now, does it make sense from govt's perspective for criminalizing the woman?. Yes. You know why?. You know their excuse?. They said the reason it is made criminal act for anyone to grow food in their yard is because it undermines economic growth. They think she rather go to the store and spend her money on govt controlled foods than growing hers. Makes sense from their view? Yes. Makes sense to you as nigerian?. No. See what I am talking about?.

And truly, if everyone has to grow their own food in their yards or lot, it would affect US economy. So her sentence from what i read back then was even brutal than a real murderer. In the case of Nasr ibn Hajjaaj, it would never make sense to average 21 century human regardless of how it is explained. So you cant blame Umar Faruq for this. He was threatened by the woman's statement which might in turn constituted fawaish. No one cares about public indecencies now or what may lead to it.


This incident of a woman i narrated did not make big headlines nor did it attract so called human right activists but few. You know why?. Because it is US. If similar incident had happened in Saudi or Iran, you would hear the whole world screaming "barbaric Muslims", "backward people" etc. Hope you comprehend my analogy?

Another points of view as explained by scholars are:


**the fact that this happened and was narrated, and people knew of it, teaches the new generation to fight temptation and teaches people in authority how to run people’s affairs from a shar‘ia point of view, and how to give the public interest precedence over private interests. It also demonstrates that the temptation of women is one of the greatest temptations.


**the sanctity of Madinah requires the banishment of anyone who is a source of temptation to women; he should be made to leave and go to some other land, out of respect for its sanctity.


And Allah knows best.

BETATRON:
@ empir.ee....what you have successfully done is show 9 cases where umar would have issued wrong verdicts if not for the help of some of the sahabah and also goes a long way in exposing his ignorance on the koran and the the sunnah....thanks for enlightening more about umar

I knew you would say that. You read it wrong from another perspective. These 9 pieces ( and even more are reserved) are extracted only for the purpose of those who accused him of tyrannical, oppressive and intolerant regime. There are other cases he made sound judgements.

8- Shaybah bin `Uthman:


Shaybah told Shaqeeq: “`Umar bin al-Khattab sat in your seat as you are sitting now then said: I shall not leave until I divide the money of the Ka`bah.”

I said: “You will not do it!”

He said: “I shall!”

I said: “You shall not do this!”

He said: “Why?”

I said: “Because the messenger of Allah (SAWS) left it in its place and so did Abu Bakr, and they were both more in need of it than you but they never took it out.” So he stood up and left.


Comment: When the Prophet (SAWS) opened the Ka`bah he found in it many treasures from gold and gifts, so he left them in place and so did Abu Bakr, but when the conditions became very bad during the Khilafah of `Umar, he wished to extract these treasures and divide them
among the people but when reminded of the example of his two companions he chose to follow their footsteps.


source: Sunan abu Dawud.





9- `Abdullah ibn `Abbas:


Ibn `Abbas told Nafi`: “I was the one responsible for what happened to that woman they brought to `Umar, she gave birth in six months and the people did not accept this, so I told `Umar: Why do you oppress?”

He said: “How?”

I said recite: {his bearing and his weaning are thirty months} and {Women shall suckle their children two complete years}

I asked: “How much is the year?”

He said: “Twelve months.”

I said: “So twenty four months are two complete years, and Allah delays from the pregnancy what he wills and hastens what he wills.”

So `Umar felt comfortable with my saying.


Comment: `Umar bin al-Khattab accepting the opinion and judgement of the much younger ibn `Abbas.


source: Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq.



What is being established in my postings is NOT necessarily about incompetency. It is response to those who accused Umar Faruq (ra) of dictatorship and oppressive. How can `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) be a dictator when he would listen to the opinion of other knowledgeable companions and followers? How can he be oppressive when he allows those around him to state their opinions openly? How can he be a tyrant when he would choose the opinions of others over his own opinions?. That's what's being established here.

^Humm, lol. I didnt really mean democracy as we know it today. That's why i quoted it. I meant its essence, democratic system where he allowed public opinion and contributions.

Oh I forgot you opened this thread before. Check your email

BETATRON:
if I read the 2nd post correctly umar didn't consult zayd he(umar) actually was about to punish a man UNJUSTICE(evidence of his lack of knowledge on how to go on this issue) before zayd intervened....if not for zayd caliph umar would have issued another wrong verdict......same goes with the 3rd------all these indeed reveals umar inability and incapacity to rule the ummah...cause here we have the case of a man who if not for the help and intervention of some sahabahs would made a lot of wrong judgments

I think you missed the point here. Umar (ra) displayed clear case of a true "democracy" by allowing difference of opinion despite him having final say as head of state.

This is contrary to saying he is a dictator. I dont believe he would not know the right judgement to pass. I believe Allah used him in these narrations as example for us. Who in the so called democratic state today ready to reason with others?. They rather enforce theirs.

6- Ubay ibn Ka`b:


`Umar bin al-Khattab and Ubay bin Ka`b both made Zayd ibn Thabit a judge between them because Ubay claimed some palm trees to be from his property, so Zayd told Ubay: “Pardon the chief of believers.” but `Umar said: “Why should he pardon the chief of believers? If I recognized something as mine I shall swear an oath that it is, otherwise I leave it. By Allah the one and only, these palms are mine and Ubay has no right to them.” -So when they returned- `Umar offered the trees to Ubay, then it was said to him: “Why didn’t you do this before making the oath?” He said: “I feared that if I did not swear an oath, the people would not do it when it comes to their rights after me, and they would take it as Sunnah.”


Comment: `Umar would be judged just as any common man would, and even though he won the case and regained his right, yet later he offered it to Ubay so as to not create hatred, when asked why he did this if he was going to offer him the trees in the first place, he said that he did this so that people would see his example and follow it.

source: Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubbah.




7- al-Dahhak bin Suffiyan:

`Umar bin al-Khattab used to say: “Diyyah is for the sane woman, and the wife does not inherit anything from the Diyyah of her husband.” until al-Dahhak bin Suffiyan informed him that the Prophet (SAWS) wrote to him to give the woman of Ashiyam al-Dabbabi from his Diyyah, so `Umar went back to doing this.


Comment: `Umar was informed of a prophetic ruling so he chose to follow it.

source: Sunan abu Dawud.

5- `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud:


`Umar bin al-Khattab gave his Fatwa about a man who killed another man intentionally, that he must be killed, then some of his heirs pardoned the man, but still `Umar insisted to have him killed. Ibn Mas`ud said: “His fate was placed in their hands, and when they pardoned they granted life, so he cannot be put to death unless he takes the life of another.”

`Umar said: “What do you think?” He said: “I see that you place a Diyyah on him, and raise the share of he who pardoned.” `Umar said: “I am of this opinion too.”


Comment: `Umar changed his opinion and accepted the Fatwa of ibn Mas`ud.

source: al-Umm by al-Shafi`i.

4- Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman:


Hudhayfah said that he met `Umar bin al-Khattab one morning, so `Umar told him: “How are you faring today O son of al-Yaman?” He told him: “And how would you like me to fare!? By Allah, this morning I hate the truth, and I love the trials, and I give testimony to that which I did not see, and I guard that which is un-created, and I pray without ablution, and I have on earth what Allah does not possess in the heavens.”

So `Umar got angry from his words and left quickly to attend to an urgent matter, but he had resolved to punish Hudhayfah because of what he said. Along the way, he passed by `Ali ibn abi Talib, who saw that he had an angry face, so he asked: “What angers you O `Umar?” He said: “I passed by Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman and asked him how are you this morning? and he replied: this morning I hate the truth.”`Ali said: “He is truthful, because death is The Truth.” He said: “And he also says: I love the trials!” `Ali said: “He is truthful, he loves wealth and children as Allah said: {Your wealth and your children are but a trial}” He(Umar) said: “O `Ali! he says that he bears testimony of what he did not see!” `Ali said: “He is truthful, he testifies that Allah is one, and he testifies to death and resurrection and heaven and hell although he never saw them.”`Umar said: “He guards the un-created?” Ali replied: “He speaks truth, he guards the Qur’an and it is un-created.” He said: “And he prays without ablution?” He replied: “He speaks truth, as he sends prayers upon my cousin the messenger of Allah (SAWS) without ablution and it is valid.”`Umar said: “O abu al-Hassan, he said a much greater thing.” He said: “What is it?” He said: “He said I have on earth what Allah does not possess in the heavens!” `Ali said: “True, he has a wife and a kid, and Allah most high is elevated above having a wife and a kid.” `Umar then told him: “Ibn al-Khattab almost perished, if it weren’t for `Ali ibn abi Talib.”


Comment: `Umar understood the apparent meaning of Hudhayfah’s words without thinking of possible excuses, so when `Ali saw him walking with an angry face, he was concerned and asked him about it. Then `Umar thanked `Ali for saving him from committing a mistake.


source: al-Fusoul al-Muhimmah by ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki

SubhanAllah! this is deep. This also teaches us appearance and reality are opposite of each other. Not to take certain commands literally. Ali (ra) displays his firasa (insight) in this narration. This is also the reality of the world today. We have people with external eye who don't see beyond material reality. We also have people with firasa or internal intuitive. But in this context though, it shows that Umar(ra) is submissive to others' opinion. He is humble. Ali(ra) did tawil of Hudhayfah's statements but Umar(ra) understood Hudhayfah literally.

2- Zayd ibn Thabit:


Ubadah ibn al-Samit called a man from Nabatiyyah to hold his camel for him near al-Quds, but he refused, so he hit him and injured his head, so he called `Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he said: “What caused you to do what you did?” He replied: “O chief of believers, I asked him to guard my camel for me and he refused, and I am a man with temper so I hit him.” `Umar said: “Sit down for punishment.” Zayd ibn Thabit said: “Would you punish your brother for your slave!?” So `Umar untied him and ruled that he must pay blood money (Diyyah).

Comment: `Umar adopted the opinion of Zayd over his own.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.





3- abu `Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah:


A man from Ahlul-Dhimmah was intentionally murdered in al-Sham, and `Umar bin al-Khattab was then in al-Sham, so when this news reached him, he said: “Have you people began oppressing Ahlul-Dhimma!? By Allah I will execute his killer for this!” so abu `Ubaydah said: “You have no right to do this.” Then after prayer he called on abu `Ubaydah and asked: “Why do you see that I should not kill his killer?” He replied: “Do you see if he killed a slave of his, would you have killed him for it?” So `Umar was silent, and he ruled with harshness that he must pay a thousand Dinars for this.

Comment: `Umar took the opinion of abu `Ubaydah over his own, he spared the killer but made him pay a big sum of blood-money.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

I can understand Khidri(as) was a leader of spiritual world but fact remains, he existed in the time of Musa (alaiy salaam) which subjected him to ummah of Musa. Also I think we should be fair and be careful when we criticize 'baami' Umar Ibn Khattab (ra). What op has been posting may need further examinations because there are many instances where Ibn Khattab(ar) actually took advice from people including other sahaba on the same and similar subject. I shall post them below subsequently.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)


Below are a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.



Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra): Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?

Posted by TwelverShia.net on Apr 24th, 2013 in Fadha'il, Sahaba | 4 comments
Facebook1TwitterGoogle+EmailPrintPrintFriendly
al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra)

(Just and god-fearing ruler, or oppressive dictator?)

The Shia claim that `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) was an oppressive dictator who would crush anyone who stands in his path, who would oppress anyone who opposes him, and who would silence all those who disagree with him… This is how the Imami Shia painting his image among their followers, and they also use this as an excuse as to why `Ali (ra) didn’t revolt against him, and why `Ali (ra) couldn’t clarify the matters of Imamah and religion, for fear from harm…
But little do the Imami Shia know about `Umar (ra) and little do they know about the religion altogether.
So, below we shall show a few examples of `Umar (ra) consulting `Ali (ra) as well as other Sahaba (ra) and taking their advice and opinions and preferring their word over his own.
(This article shall provide only one example from each companion or follower and will not concentrate on `Ali since we plan to write a separate article on his relation with the three leaders who preceded him.)
`Umar bin al-Khattab and some of the Sahaba and Tabi`een may Allah be pleased with them:


1- Mu`adh ibn Jabal:

A man came to `Umar bin al-Khattab and said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! I have been absent from my wife for two years and when I returned I found her pregnant!” So `Umar consulted the people about stoning her. But Mu`adh ibn Jabal said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen! You may have the authority to stone her but you do not have the authority to do the same for the child in her womb.” So he left her until she gave birth to a boy.

The man saw in him great resemblance to himself, and shouted: “By the Lord of the Ka`bah he is my son!” `Umar then told Mu`adh: “Women have given up trying to give birth to anyone like Mu`adh, if it were not for Mu`adh then `Umar would perish.”

Comment: Mu`adh helped `Umar solve the man’s case peacefully by pleasing all sides.

source: Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra.

What makes or qualifies a land "commercial land" in residential area in nigeria?.

^ I forgot i went through this thread before. That's hell of major renovation. Eyes are hitching. We wanna see updated pix.

EgunMogaji:
Roofing, doors and windows consecutively and then wiring and plumbing.

This is what makes sense to me.

I thought if highlighted is done after window, we may have to bust widows open during plumbing and wiring.

Which one should get done first:

*electrical wiring and plumbing

*roofing?

abdulwastecx:
Polystyrene fascia

How does it installed when it comes to roofing, do we still need some sort of bricks or concert to hold it?. Do you have sample of a finished Polystyrene fascia done in nigeria?

Paver Clamp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOZ82MX0kKs

AlBaqir:
oh oh Na so E be naw. You can run away from Gulam Ahmad. The brother knew 100% that all Ahlu sunnah distanced themselves from Gulam Ahmad. The methodology that Sino want to use is bringing out alien Shi'i scholars that had weird beliefs, present them as popular regular Scholars and then affirm that their belief is Shi'i belief. In fact, I have distance myself from his usual copy-paste. In Shi'i school, you don't do taqlid in Aqeedah based issues. Only I fiqh you are allow to do taqlid.

Ok nau. I guess he reciprocated sino's tactics.

kopell:
Bros the house as be build already, it's at plastering stange.

Great. Wish you well bro. You still negotiating plastering and fencing with your bricklayer?

ShiaMuslim:
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Sunni leader claimed that Prophet Muhammad (s) is not the last prophet, and that he was also a prophet.

You can do better than this brother. Majority Sunni muslims dont recognise this dude. Ghulam is basically leader of Ahamadiya sect. Majority muslims rejected his silly doctrine that he's the fulfilment of the return of Isa(as). And that when Jesus(p) disappeared in Jerusalem he lived a new live in India. Ask some indian and Carribeans people. That's what they know about whereabout of Jesus. But neither Quran nor hadith gives clue of his whereabout growing up. Some muslims even declared Ahmadiyah and his sect as kufar. To say rosulAllah is not the last prophet is statement of kufr. That's not Sunnis' creed.

conclusion: Sunnis do not believe Muhammad (s) was the last prophet and messenger of Allah (swt).

Even Albaqir would disagree with you sir. Common, you should know better than this. Don't let hatred cloud your reasoning.