₦airaland Forum

Pictures of the day

Hadith of the day

spyder880:
When you add wood, cement, chippings, iron rods, sand, water and casting labour to it, its bound to get high.

oh...wasnt thinking about all that. Thanks

Kunlexic:
But if a non-muslim neighbour bring xmas food,should it be rejected or accepted.
I need explanation on this

Surah Maida ayah 5 says:

"This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)."

This ayah @ bolded should not be taken literally or in isolation. We must take all the data in its totality and derive the meaning. In the same chapter, Verse (5:3), Allah tells us food that are forbidden to eat. It reads:


"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience....."


Today's world, many Christians are not conscious of this anymore. 99.99% chance is that the meat of chicken, ram, lamb, beef etc they eat are slaughtered mentioning names of other than Allah's. Some dont even mentioned anything. They just slaughtered them. In Western world, they dont even slaughter them Islamic way. They shot them, strangle them and all types of violent death. You dont need to see them before you figure it out.

As for if your christian family, friends or neighbors give you food for Christmas, in my opinion, if they choose to give you food, it means they have no problem with you. You should take it but you dont have to eat it. Take it and thank them. I am sure you can always give it to hungry poor man out there, or feed animal with it. It is not nice nor is it sunnah to reject their food unless if they dont give you to begin with.

Now, let me give you example of mine. Where I used to work, i was surrounded by Judaeo-christian people. During Christmas, my client's daughter and other relatives would bring me food, Turkey and Chicken. I do eat the vegetable brought with it but I fed my cats (at home) with the soup and meat. I also gave my neighbors who are Christians the remaining food. Shikena. They dont know what i did with their food. This is my opinion.


Other view however, state that It is clear from Sura Al-Maeda that eating meat from a Christian or Jewish butcher is lawful ( Halal ). However for this to be lawful the Christian or Jewish butcher must be a practicing Christian or Jew.

Now in the case of Jews this is very easy. As long as the Jew is a practicing Jew and the meat is slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law (Torat Moshe) then this meat and other Kosher food is lawful ( Halal) and can be eaten by Muslims.

With Christians the simplest and safest answer is NO! The main issue we have is that in the west religion has become divorced from society. So you are very unlikely to come across a practicing Christian that is following the true teachings of the Prophet Jesus (PBUH). The key issue here is Pork.

Almost all Christians now eat pork. You will find it impossible to find a non-Muslim butcher that does not have pork in his or her shop. Most Slaughter houses and meat processing plants also process Pork. Most animal by-products made from animals in the west will contain Pork. It is therefore advised that Muslims should not buy meat from shops that also sell pork or pork by products.

spyder880:
N60k and N50k respectively.

With prices you indicated, how then a parapet you did on other house, on different thread (or maybe not you). It costs 500k. Dont know if could remember the thread. Even Hajj Mufu was alarmed by it.

kazlaw2000:
. Wallaahi thats also my view. This hadiith of Abubakr throws up some questions. Firsy, why couldnt Abubakr just shorten his Izar.

That's very good observation. Like brother Numan Ali Khan once said: "Why not simply trim your trouser instead of rolling it up every time of salat?"

I see from the Hadiith, he purposely came to the prophet to seek an exemption and he was granted. The prophet assured him he was not AMONG THOSE DOING IT OUT OF PRIDE. Could it be that not everybody doing 'Isbaal' is doing it out of pride?

That's just it

Also 'Izaar' that is mentioned in those Ahadiith is a wrapper and not like the present day trousers. I believe both trousers and 'izaar' existed then because I came across and hadiith of ibn Abbaass where he said anybody that cant find an 'izaar' should pray in a trousers.

No doubt. That's why i said in my earlier post that "trousers" could have been euphemism for any type of garment.

Why was the holy prophet mentioning izaar? Or did he also mention trousers? Perhaps because of the trailing nature of 'Izaar' if its too long. That's clearly wasteful and full of pride. Maybe that's what the holy prophet was warning against and exonerating Abubakr from and not as we understand it today. Wallaahu a'lam. My view anyway.

I have concluded that "Izaar" could have simply means garments, abaya, Jibab etc. Whatever is it should be above the ankle. There is nothing wrong exploring hadith and verses of Quran unlike our brothers dragnet and co. They usually take face value of text and reject opposing view. They rad religious text like like magazine (mechanical). That's just too bad.

"Wearing garments that hang below the ankles" is the first of the so-called "common errors" listed in the "Salafi" manual entitled "Errors in Prayers that must be Avoided." This manual is filled with proofs that the "Salafis" are misguided and misguiding propagators of errors in the guise of corrections.

It is a more than adequate illustration of their delusion that their method of reading and interpreting the hadith in "happy-go-lucky" fashion, as if it were a newspaper, regardless of the prescriptions of hadith methodology, will save them from error. How can something save them from error which proceeds from pride to begin with -- since they insist on relying on their own wits rather than on what better minds than theirs have understood from the same evidence?

They have misunderstood the caution of the Prophet against vestimentary pride to consist solely in a point about ankle-length. However, there are those who wear their bottoms of their trousers cut short and strut with as much pride as the pagans of Jahiliyya meant by the very hadith they claim to follow. The sin does not consist in the length of the cloth but in the hidden pride it fosters:

`Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud said that the Prophet said: "He will not enter the Garden of Paradise who has an atom's worth of pride in his heart." A man said: "What about someone who likes handsome clothes and handsome sandals?" The Prophet replied: "Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty. Pride is refusing to admit the truth and having contempt for people."


Muslim states

Narrated Abu Dharr: The Messenger of Allah observed: "Three are the (persons) with whom Allah would neither speak on the Day of Resurrection, nor would look at them nor would absolve them, and there is a painful chastisement for them." The Messenger of Allah repeated it three times. Abu Dharr remarked: "They failed and they lost; who are these persons, Messenger of Allah?" Upon this he observed: "They are: the one who makes (his garment) hang down on the ground (al-musbil), the recounter of obligation, and the seller of goods by false oath."

Muslim narrates directly afterwards another version from Abu Dharr where the loin-wrap or lower garment (izar) is explicitly mentioned.

The following are Imam Nawawi's, Ibn Qudama's, and Ibn Hajar's commentaries on the various hadiths on this chapter. It will be seen in the light of their views that there is no basis whatsoever in these hadiths for the preposterous statement of the "Salafis" whereby "the above and many other traditions indicate clearly that wearing clothes that hang below the ankles for men is a grave sin regardless of whether such garments are worn out of habit or pride." Observe, dear reader, the sharp difference between the keen sight of the true ulama and the myopic sight of the rest:


Nawawi states

As for the Prophet's saying: "the one who makes his garment hang down on the ground" then its meaning is: The one who lets it down and drags its extremity out of arrogance (khayla') as has been mentioned by way of explanation (of the same phrase) in the other hadith [in Bukhari and Muslim]: "Allah will not look at a person who drags his lower garment in arrogance." Khayla' is self-aggrandizement (kibar), and this restricted (muqayyad) meaning of letting down the garment as consisting in dragging it (al-jarr) out of arrogance reduces the general sense of the person who lets down the lower garment to a specific sense and indicates that the one meant by the threat of punishment is the one who does so out of arrogance.

author=kennyosein post=41322187]

Zionists will eventually use you and your cohorts in naijeria to cause trouble. And you will work for them unconsciously. Keep beating drums of war.

[quote author=Tooka post=41294224][/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdd2-WGimN4

First all, i have no problem with pant being above the ankles.

Secondly, I dont believe it's a major a sin (where did prophet- saw say that?). Major sins are mentioned in the Quran (and established tafsir) and the Sunna. I only hear about pant(trouser) below ankle being major sin in recent years. Thats false in my opinion. This is why some Sufis snubbed when salafis make noise over it. They are very correct though.

Thirdly, when i was on fb years ago, a brother from nija said he would not give his daughter in marriage to a brother whose pant(trouser) is below the ankle. Isnt this extremism?. Is trouser below the ankle criteria to determine whom to give your daughter?. The answer is no. [al-Baqarah 2:221]. Al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allah Alone)” – there is consensus on this point: it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a mushrik man.

Where is "trouser below the ankle" criteria in this?.

Fourthly, isn't hypocritical when you people criticize nominal Muslims and opposing view while in fact, if you pay close attention to Saudi muftis and some salafis brothers, their garments drag. Note, it's not just trouser. Trouser is mere euphemism of saying any gown/garment you wear.

Now, watch Saudi muftis' break dance and pay attention to their gowns as well. Obviously if they dont hold it up it would drag definitely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2zmKIUJ2g

How do you enjoy the dance? I dey enjoy am

DeathStroke007:
I rest my case

Yup

DeathStroke007:
it's simple... practising dark magic, using jinns to cure or to harm ...

Please brother, stop saying things without knowledge.

Jalabi is "IWOSAN", medicinal aspect of islam. This section is separate from obligatory duties and it must also conform with Shari'a. Islam is not all about salat,ramadan, zakat and Haj. And if some people abuse it that's equivalent to medical malpractices. But at least they exploit many other aspects of islam.

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

Sufism In Time Of Prophet{SAW}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_enNAdTas

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585105263

DeathStroke007:
you misunderstood the meaning of jalabi... what you explained is not jalabi..

What is 'jalabi'?

Deayhstroke sounds like typical "protestant Islam ".

DeathStroke007:
well, I don't hate you nor anybody.. telling you to practice sunnah is my obligation as a Muslim.. practising it is entirety in your hands... and if you feel offended by any of my words... sorry o..

so those men (our ulama in the, at least 19th, 20th and 21st centuries) are wrong for some Mustahab practices they introduced like mawlud, Quran competition, recitation of different salawat and the list goes on. Were they not upon Quran and sunnah?.

As far as I'm concern, when the rosul (saw) said: "If you live long enough you will see many differences. So hold on to my sunnah and the sunnah of rightly guided sahaba and be aware of bida'a. ..."

This means practices that are bad i:e outside the fold of islam. He's not talking about duas or practices that are in harmony with Sharia.

There are other references which I'm not able to quote at this time where the sahaba were on a trip and came across sick person who was stung by snake or scorpion. The sahaba used their initiative by reciting sura fathia on the wound and the poison came out. And they got paid by the victim.

When they came home to the prophet (saw), they narrated their experience. He asked them who taught you to recite sura fathia? . They said Quran is healing and everything therein is 'iwosan'. And the victim was well and that we got paid. Rosul replied that he wants some of their compensation . That is "JALABI".

Try to look for the hadith. I posted if someplace before. You brothers don't seem to understand that in a matter of fard, there is no excuse, no opinion or intellect works with that. But in matter of voluntary act, there are different of opinion and acts. It's all must be within the sharia. If doesn't have to be exactly xyz in the sunnah.

So narrating above tells you and I that Rosul (saw) silently approved their initiatives.....yet he did not teach them that. Same is logical with solati fathi. You free to disagree though.

DeathStroke007:
the purpose of muazin is adhan.. the purpose of adhan is to be heard . . tall or no tall...minaret or minaret no mean.. as long as people hear the adhan

ma sha Allah. So what do you say about those who say is bida'a?

Fundamentalist:
Being?

"you will never understand what you hate."

His statement isnt clear enough?

Tooka:
you will never understand what you hate.

Word!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

DeathStroke007:
Grand picture? Shey that tall house wey dey for grand mosques?

lol....minarets are those tall slender tower, where in most cases, muezzin calls Muslims to prayer.

DeathStroke007:



Kilonje minarets

It's the grand picture i posted lol. You never seen one before?

DeathStroke007:
Minarets.. Honestly mi o gbori..

Lol....

^ Thats Aliu Jabata for you

DeathStroke007:
You are getting this wrong bro.. the inch of imam or imam space or station.. As long as imam is in the front .. No problem.. Imam station is just to beautify.. And imam station or construction of mosque only deals with one thing ..KIBLAH.. So the issue of imam station Is irrelevant..

And its not applicable to tasbEeh bro

Okay, you passed. That was a test. And minarets?

DeathStroke007:
The reason why abubakar is exempt out of the sunnah of trousers..

Well, whats your take on this?.

“The scholars have mentioned a few different reasons why it is not correct for you to try to compare yourself with Abu Bakr As-Sideeq (radiallaahu ‘anhu)."


– Firstly, we don’t have a testimony as Abu Bakr did from the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that he wasn’t doing it out of pride. The Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: You are not one doing it out of Pride. None of you have a testimony from the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) (saying) you’re not doing it out of pride. (That’s) number one.

– Number two, the ‘ulemma mention that it happened to Abu Bakr because of his thinness, he was a thin man. Very small (waist), and it was hard for him to keep his izaar up, and it used to fall.

– The third issue the ‘ulemma mention is that he was striving to keep it up! He wasn’t just letting it all hang out and down like this. He was striving to keep it up.

– [Fourthly,] they (the scholars) also mention another narration that the Prophet mentioned that isbal itself is nakhyila – isbal itself is arrogance. The ‘ulemma mentioned that at the very least it leads to arrogance…”

I also think that there is a twisted misunderstanding of this issue of trousers below the ankle. I think it is taken too literal though. I safe that for later.

^ this is just tafsir now. Doesnt address what you doing. Are other sects in Islam going to hell except THE SALAFIS?

DeathStroke007:
abeg answer the guy question. I don't know how to explain it to make it clear to him.

Whats the question?

DeathStroke007:
Exactly.. Since prophet never did tarawee.. Its not advisable to do it( tarawee is strictly an issue concerning religion)

So you dont offer tarawee?. It's just nafilat by the way. Nothing sinful should one decides not to. But it's pretty much dunce(literal and slow learning) to say if prophet didnt do it you wont. That'as like holding on to a shell. Tarawee is supererogatory.

Concerning the mentions "radiAllah anium" after sahba name is alright intellectually and am sure it might get started by the arabs ..its just a sign o respect for the sahbahs.. And its not bidiah nor right or wrong because its not par of islam.. If you say "radiaAllah anium" no reward nor sin for you, if you don't, no reward or sin for you

You are a funny dude. You choose what is and what is not bid'a

DeathStroke007:
Yeah you are correct but mind you, its religion issue we talking about and that's exactly why Allah made him the zeal of prophet, everything he (saw) practised is to show us ( muslims ) how to do it. What I believe and will always believe is that sahbeeh will never ever do anything prophet muhammad(saw) never did. Since there is no written document on prophet muhammad(saw) using pebbles or stones( although pebbles or stones were around him)... I can't believe any sahbah will use it.


Allah knows best

@bolded, very well then. Check this out. In the time of the prophet, masajid didnt have inch (Imam station) in the wall but now we have them. Did rosul order that?. Also, the minarets only emerged during Ottoman era, clock over high rise building in Saudi and clock to watch times of salat. The lists are endless. These are not there in the time of rosul(saw). But arent they beneficial?.

Some muslims are now calling for destruction of minarets, they said it is bida'a bcus it wasnt there in the time of rosul. You see, stuff like this are matters that are revolving. We dont need sacred order for them. We need to apply intellect. Same applies to stones, pebbles, tasbeeh.

DeathStroke007:
E.mpiree will surely do that..

DeathStroke007:
Haba.. I have no idea what bidiah means.. Ok.. I accept.. Please educate me on what bidiah means


And concerning the issues I said I have no idea about.. Explain also sir

The issue of tarawee was dealt with several times. I really need not elaborate on that. Check albaqir's profile. I think he's the one who started the thread. Check it out and learn there. However, I somewhat disagree with shia's stands on tarawee. They do not reject it but i think they have problem with its congregation. Indeed, prophet(SAW) did not offer tarawee in congregation for the fact that people may make it conpulsory. Ths is just brief i can tell you.

As for sending blessings on sahabee, thats really not issue. It was not ordered by the prophet but it's intellectually sound to do so. It's not bid'a to say "radiaAllah anium" following mentions of any sahaba.

kennyosein:
My post is tangled according to your reasoning? Yh it is.

Like a brother said some of us hate spiders, but leave cobwebs around the house. Y'all want Muslim unity but belong to MSS, TMC, NASFAT and the rest. Some funny ones even do Sufism and Shiism!

E.mpiree if Salafis are just one sect and you don't belong there, you must necessarily belong to one of the other 72 for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) never lied. What do you say?

If you know your sect, why not write about it, if you claim rather not to belong to any sect or group, please explain the hadith below:

It was narrated from Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood among us and said: “Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this ummah will split into seventy-three: seventy-two in Hell and one in Paradise, and that is the jamaa’ah (main body of Muslims).”

Kindly reconcile that with the hadith above as your 'no sect' suggests a 74th group or that you fall completely outside the fold of Muslims.

This is why i shunned salafism. Now, the reason i cant and dont belong to any sect is bcus of this verse of Glorious Quran:


[size=13pt]"As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did."[/size] 6:159


There is no doubt the hadith that talks about 73 sects is authentic for obvious reason. However, it is clear that salafis can not properly deduce correct methodology by reconciling the ayah of Quran above and the hadith you cited. Correct methodology is Quran sits in judgement over the hadith. The hadith you quoted is never encouraging sectarianism. It's mere prophecy. It's not ordering Muslims to join sects. This is very wrong. This shows that salafi interpreted the hadith literally. In that case your methodology is in conflict with Quran.


Another verse of Glorious Quran also warned you (30:32)

Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!

So you basically rejoice by cleansing salafism as the 'only' saved sect and you rejoice doing that. You placed second source (hadith) over primary source (Quran).