₦airaland Forum

The US embassy in Mali urged American citizens Tuesday to “depart immediately” as a fuel blockade by jihadists who are battling the country’s military-run government renders daily life increasingly dangerous.

Since September, Al-Qaeda-linked fighters have targeted fuel tankers, particularly those coming from Senegal and Ivory Coast, through which the majority of Mali’s imported goods transit.

The jihadists from the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims, known by its Arabic acronym JNIM, have recently appeared to be seeking to isolate the capital Bamako by increasing operations on the surrounding roads.

The US embassy said in a statement on its website that Americans “should depart immediately using commercial aviation”, citing the “unpredictability of Bamako’s security situation”.

Difficulties, it said, included “continued disruptions of gasoline and diesel supplies, the closure of public institutions such as schools and universities nationwide, and ongoing armed conflict between Malian government and terrorist elements around Bamako”.

On Friday, the US State Department authorised non-emergency personnel and family members of US government employees to leave the country due to the safety risks.

Mali has been battling a security crisis for more than a decade fuelled by violence by jihadists affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group, as well as criminal and other gangs.

The country additionally underwent coups in 2020 and 2021 and is ruled by a military junta, which has struggled to counter the armed groups.

Despite military escorts, fuel tankers have had limited success in reaching Bamako.

Many have been set on fire, while drivers and soldiers have been killed or kidnapped in jihadist ambushes.

In its statement Tuesday, the US embassy said “overland routes to neighboring countries may not be safe for travel due to terrorist attacks along national highways”, adding that the international airport in Bamako remained open.

The United States had already issued a “do not travel” advisory for Mali, warning against going to the country “for any reason”.

Renowned Islamic scholar Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has urged Islamic judges and clerics to grant Muslim women facing domestic ab¥se the right to divorce their husbands without being forced to pay compensation.

Gumi made the call during his weekly Tafsir session at the Sultan Bello Mosque in Kaduna while speaking on “How Wives in Islam Can Also Divorce Their Cruel Husbands Without Compensation.”

He explained that Islam does not support oppression in marriage and that both men and women have equal rights to end a union when love and respect no longer exist. Citing Al-Mukhtasar Al-Khalil, a Maliki jurisprudence text, he said justice must guide all marital rulings.

Gumi lamented that men easily dissolve marriages, while women face unfair conditions when seeking div%lorce over abuse or neglect. “A husband can simply utter words and end a marriage, but when a woman seeks freedom from an ab¥sive man, she is told to pay compensation. That is injustice, and Islam stands against oppression,” he said.

Quoting Qur’anic verses (Q4:35, Q4:19, and Q4:130), he stressed that Allah allows separation when harmony is lost and that both parties should be treated fairly. He also condemned rising cases of domestic vi%lence, criticising men who ab¥se their wives but refuse to release them unless they pay through khul’ (compensatory divorce).

“When a husband insults, humiliates, or b+ats his wife, he forfeits the right to demand compensation. It becomes the duty of the judge to dissolve such a marriage immediately. No woman should be trapped in misery,” he said.

Gumi urged Islamic judges (Qadis) to protect women from injustice and act with fairness and courage. He added that a healthy marriage must be built on kindness, mercy, and respect, and when these are lost, either partner has the right to walk away in dignity

Renowned Islamic scholar Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has urged Islamic judges and clerics to grant Muslim women facing domestic ab¥se the right to divorce their husbands without being forced to pay compensation.

Gumi made the call during his weekly Tafsir session at the Sultan Bello Mosque in Kaduna while speaking on “How Wives in Islam Can Also Divorce Their Cruel Husbands Without Compensation.”

He explained that Islam does not support oppression in marriage and that both men and women have equal rights to end a union when love and respect no longer exist. Citing Al-Mukhtasar Al-Khalil, a Maliki jurisprudence text, he said justice must guide all marital rulings.

Gumi lamented that men easily dissolve marriages, while women face unfair conditions when seeking div%lorce over abuse or neglect. “A husband can simply utter words and end a marriage, but when a woman seeks freedom from an ab¥sive man, she is told to pay compensation. That is injustice, and Islam stands against oppression,” he said.

Quoting Qur’anic verses (Q4:35, Q4:19, and Q4:130), he stressed that Allah allows separation when harmony is lost and that both parties should be treated fairly. He also condemned rising cases of domestic vi%lence, criticising men who ab¥se their wives but refuse to release them unless they pay through khul’ (compensatory divorce).

“When a husband insults, humiliates, or b+ats his wife, he forfeits the right to demand compensation. It becomes the duty of the judge to dissolve such a marriage immediately. No woman should be trapped in misery,” he said.

Gumi urged Islamic judges (Qadis) to protect women from injustice and act with fairness and courage. He added that a healthy marriage must be built on kindness, mercy, and respect, and when these are lost, either partner has the right to walk away in dignity

truthera:
Okay but your explanation still does not justify continuation of the trial because Nnamdi Kanu can not be an "evidence" as he is not an object or document. He is a living human being with rights under the law. The supreme court clearly twisted the law just to nulify the Appeal court ruling acquitting him.

In my opinion, kidnapping him is already an offense not just under international law but also Nigerian law as his rights were clearly violated in the process (He is still a suspect and not yet proven guilty). It is absurd for the supreme court judge to justify the violation of his rights by transforming him magically to an "evidence" in a case he is a defendant. It does not make sense.

Even after the supreme court declared that Kanu's kidnap from Kenya was illegal, lead judgement prepared by Tijjani Abubakar, ruled that there is no Nigerian law that prohibits the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”

This shameful legal twist at the supreme court was glaringly a deliberate ploy to deny Kanu justice after he had won his case at the Court of Appeal. The supreme court stated "The Court of Appeal was wrong to say that the Federal High Court can no longer try Kanu". The judge further said “Our law is that evidence illegality obtained is valid before the court. A violation of Mr Kanu’s right should have been by way of civil proceedings. That is not our law for now”

fennels007:
She forgot to pay. Get in touch with her, she will pay even for the time wasted.

WYZAD:
Hmmmm.
How these men manage to control healthy and sane minds still beat my imagination.

KingOfAmebo:
The spamming tools e.g. custom SMTPs or hackbots are written by carpenters abi...dey play.

SpecialAdviser:
Only fuuls will misunderstand these words.
He is not commending Yahoo. He is simply saying that the ICT skill with which the yahoo boys use can be redirected to something better.

Most yahoo guys writes strong codes to break cyber secured assets. The problem is that theee idiot. S are using their skill to defraid innocent people. The government should equip good guys with sound ICT skill to achieve something better than what these animals are currently doing

owobokiri:
Because the answers are self evident to all with working brains 🧠
You cannot hand the treasury of a country to a proven criminal. That's all we are saying. Stop making it look like we are speaking Swahili..
This is not really about Bola Tinubu and Peter Obi. This is about decency vs profligacy.
It is about decorum vs malfeasance
Prudent vs kleptomania..
Very easy choice.
You have to ba an uncanny ronutard to choose a certified drug baron over a decent man with a grass to grace story..