Detention of Malama Zeenah Unconstitutional- Family

Wednesday, 11 May 2016 13:14

By Saminu Azare

The family members of Malama Zeenatudden Ibraheem Zakzaky has called on the South West political leaders, traditional rulers and the entire civil societies to intervene and struggle over the immediate and unconditional release of their daughter and her husband Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky.

In an exclusive interview with Pointer Express, Malama Nafisat Ibrahim at their family house at Mofa in Ibadan City, the elder sister to the wife of the influential leader of Islamic Movement has strongly condemned the brutal killing of over 1000+ innocent Muslims faithful at Hussainiyya Bakyatillah and Gyallesu resident of Sheik Ibrahim Zakzaky in December, 2015

Malama Nafisat said the family members are sad over the unlawful detention of their sister who sustained various degrees of gun injuries and killing of 3 of El-Zakzaky’s son in addition to (another) 3 that were killed by Nigerian Military in 2014 during Annual International Quds Day procession in Zaria.

She said Sheikh El-Zakzaky has been facing assassination attempts on his life for not committing any crime, adding that on 12the December, 2015 when she was told that army was attacking followers of Islamic Movement, she phoned her younger sister asking her what was happening, then she replied that she did not know anything but she was informed that Nigerian Army were shooting at Hussainiyya after laying siege to the building.

“Later on I called my sister, so she told me that their Gyallesu resident was surrounded by Nigerian Army and said are you are hearing the gun shot they are coming to kill us now since then, I did not hear anything from her” she explained in tears.

She further said when President Buhari was elected, she was very happy, because she know he will tamper justice with mercy in his administration but now I don’t support him because of extra-judicial killing of over 1000; this is injustice and detaining of Sheik and his wife too is unconstitutional, adding that if they claim their road was blocked by followers of Sheik Zakzaky, was the death sentence punishment for blocking road?

She concluded that killing of innocent defenseless Muslim faithfuls, burning their dead bodies and destroying their houses and properties is unacceptable and crime against God and humanity.

Malama Zeenatudden El-Zakzaky is a Yoruba by tribe, indigene of Ibadan, Oyo State; continuing detaining her is a big slap on the face of millions of Yorubas who strongly brought President Buhari to power in May, 2015.



http://islamicmovement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2646:detention-of-malama-zeenah-unconstitutional-family&catid=41:frontpage

Reminez:

The sim..pleton you are quoting is an impostor from the gully ravaged land of the rising poverty.. He's one of the flat..headed gullIBOS

la hawla wala quwwata illah billah.

MrAdetunjiBayo:


We've already started that's why we yoruba muslims took sides with the hausa during the mile12 crisis.

i doubt you speak on behalf of Yorubas. Yorubas are the most religiously diverse people in Nigeria and the most tolerant.

find out the number of Shiite Muslims among Yoruba. start even here on Nairaland. the number one Shiite preacher in the Islam forum is Albaqir, a Yoruba. you are either not Yoruba and trying to give Yoruba a bad name, or you are not well.

MrAdetunjiBayo:

You shiites are idolators and infidels, we yoruba muslims support the action against you infidels. More grease to Buratai's guns. The government has a monopoly of violence! Sai baba!

start by killing your fellow Yorubas who are idolators. but wait, dont people have right to be idolators and infidels?

MrAdetunjiBayo:
We yoruba muslims support Buhari in the shiite massacre. The shiites are infidels.

if the penalty for being an infidel is death, then you still have many more millions to kill both in and outside of Nigeria.

what is the difference between this your idea of killing people for being infidels and Boko Haram or ISIS' ideology of killing those they deem infidels? this Wahhabi Takfirism must cease.

how can one Muslim call another an infidel? you know the Prophet said a Muslim who refers to another as an infidel is the one that is the infidel. Shiites believe in Allah and His Unique Oneness and the prophethood of Muhammad (p).

killing people for what they believe in is not justified in a democracy and in a secular state where freedom of belief is a right, even if truly the Shiites are infidels in your estimation or they even worship images and animals. there are many infidels in Nigeria, including the Christian sects. are you going to kill them too? that will amount to ethnic/religious cleansing or genocide.

muhamadnur:
uuhmmm first of all, hope your a muslim and second i think even if your a muslim you must be shia, as ive witnessed from your profile. 1st for me majority means the there is something behind it. And why i am a sunni muslim is simple bcoz the only thing that sunni islam teaches is 1st knowledge and 2nd never follow blindly (as in meaning following the scholars like there prophets) and from what i witnessed is exactly what the shias and tijjaniyya are doing, subhanallah if i am not mistaking some i believ prefer the clerics more.
Sunni islam say follow allah and his messenger only which i believ is the real reason why islam is sent down, that is (submit to allah) and the evidence and proof that shias are the ones that divided islam is they do not respect and recognize some of the sa,abah which prophet muhammad s.A.W says are the best of creature to trek this earth after him, and then to the wife of the prophet, whom not any one but allah him self proved of her innocense by sending down an entire revalation. But shias still proof that she is not innocent. There are much more but this are only some facts. Sunni is the only true part you might hate it but the truth is bitter, why did sunni islam is still the ruling sect in the birth place of the prophet why not shia, shias are hypocrite if you abuse umar,abubakar,usman and the rest and think aisha is adultreous. Then.... Lemme just stop there shiite your end in nigeria is near.

You speak of knowledge but you are full of assumptions. Why are the Jews the ruling religion at the first Qiblah of the Muslims (Jerusalem)?

Anyways, your claims are incorrect. You should research and read more.

www.al-Islam.org

IndianBwoy:



Shiities tolerate Zoroastrianism.

Shiitie was a backlash against sunni destruction of Persian culture and religion and the rape of their women and genocide of their ppl during the islamic invasion under Caliph Abu Bakr!

that assumption is not true to a large extent, even though Iranians view Sunni Islam as dominated by Arabian culture. Iran was Sunni majority and Sunni ruled till the 16th century when the ruler changed to Shia Islam, and made it official state religion. Most classical Sunni scholars are of Persian origin. it is more or less rivalry between the Sunni Ottoman Turkish Empire and the Persian Safavid Empire.

muhamadnur:
i am not talking about population what i am trying to figure out is after 500yrs islam is going head to head with christianity why,(their are religions like jews,buddhism,etc).
and coming to the point where why sunni is (intolerable) that will that will date back to history the shias want to divide islam for their interest not gods.
And the sunnis strongly opposed that, that is immidiately after the death of the prophet, they believe (ali) should rule next, while the majority believ abubakar,umar,and usman are to rule first,
then they carve their own group aside from the majority that is why people call them "shia" meaning "break away" or out of people, they later went on to kill usman, and umar also was killed by a persian guy which his intentions are unknown, even up to today they abused the closest friends of the messenger "which is totally unacceptable" and calling one of the prophets wife adulterous again "unacceptable" if us,uk,germany could allow that is bcoz is a christian nation. Do you want any more lectures, "bonus tip", in the entire islamic world they only have 2 stronghold irag,iran. Why..... U should provide this answer.

if you ask a Shiite, he will tell you that it is Sunnis that deviated from the true Islam and the caliphate was usurped. so do not impose your "truth" on anyone. follow your truth and let others follow theirs. even Allah is tolerant as per these verses:

Quran 12:103
"And most men will not believe though you desire it eagerly."

Quran 10:99
"And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?"

Quran 5:48
"And We have revealed to you, [O Muúammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ".

muhamadnur:
hey dumbas$ stop shouting on nairaland, why is it that sunni islam has 90% of the islamic world, the simple truth is that it is the true path, why did islam almost surpast christianity even though it came 500years later it is becoz its the truth, shias favour their clerics more than anything else, while sunni only follow the messenger and god, and islam is the true religion from god, while christianity is now what i would call the inteprated and human interest group.

that is a baseless assumption that because you are the majority so you have the truth. majority of humanity do not follow Abrahamic religions. they are polytheists. so going by your assumption, polytheism is truthful and monotheism is not. even the Quran does not agree with that assumption, but to the contrary. if you study the demographics in the Middle East closely, you will see that even after centuries of oppression and persecution, whereby the Shiites have often times been obstructed to practice freely, the populations of the two branches are almost the same in the Middle East as whole, or the Sunnis are slightly more.

for the fact that the Sunni caliphate was in power in the Middle East is the reason why the official version of those in power was exported around the world, whether through conquest, trade or influence. thus you see that outside the Middle East is where the numbers in favor of Sunnis are staggering. otherwise, within the Middle East in spite of the fact Sunnis have held power one way or the other, the numbers are still head to head. Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Azerbaijan are majority Shiite countries, and they are combined over 100 million Shiites. Yemen is almost evenly split. Saudi, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kuwait have one third Shia populations.

Quran 6:116
"And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie."

Quran 21:24
"Or have they chosen other gods beside Him? say: Bring your proof (of their godhead). This is the Reminder of those with me and those before me, but most of them know not the Truth and so they are averse."

Newnas:
The hypocrite always leaves a backdoor for escape.
Any hadith that can't be twisted is automatically weak and fabricated.
But the hadith you twisted to support your misguidance on mut'ah, they are authentic abi?
Double standard!

There is no double standard. They are meant for you to uphold them since they are your books and you label them entirely as you label the Quran as "sahih".

The hadiths of mut'ah in your books are of three types and they are all in your sihah. You have to therefore accept all and live in eternal contradiction or you use your head to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your straying away from the path of the Thaqalain has brought you immeasurable disasters and confusion and misguidance. Blame yourselves and those who misled you.

The hadiths in your sihah can thus be categorized:

1.) mut'ah was permitted and prohibited by the Prophet (s) often.

2.) it was permitted and prohibited "forever" and then permitted and then "forever" prohibited and then permitted and then "forever" prohibited.

3.) it was never prohibited by the Prophet (s) but by Umar and the companions continued to practice it way after the passing away of the Prophet (s).

So with such magnitude of confusion, orchestrated confusion that is, how do you expect to have the truth?

MrOlai:

Can you see your life? The ahadith from the Prophet(SAW) are not for you! No wonder the scholars of Islam consider you people Kufar(unbelievers)!
I arrest my case!

Please brother Albaqir forgive me for indulging. This would be my last post to him. It is obvious he is drifting in desperation since he has no straws to clutch at regarding mut'ah.

Mr. Olai,

There are fabricated hadiths that abound in Sunni books of hadiths. I'm not under obligation to accept your ahadith simply because you attribute them to the Prophet (s). Couldn't you have seen that's the reason I said those hadiths you quoted from your books are not for me but for you? And I even went further to state that we quote them for you. And again further I went to mention Shia hadiths of the Prophet (s). So how then can you stupidly claim I reject the words of the Prophet (s)?

But of course Takfirism is part of the misguidance you imagine to be Islam. It's in your blood.

MrOlai:


Your foolish statements here show your thinking is not different from that of a Kufar!

There are many things married couples can do in their bedrooms that Allah(SWT) has made harm. One of such is for the husband to have sex with his wife when she is menstruating.

Allah(SWT) says:
“They ask you concerning the menstruation (mahîd). Say: It is a hurt, so keep away from women in their menstruation. Do not approach them until they become clean. Then, when they purify themselves, then go unto them as to where Allah has commanded you. Truly Allah loves the penitent and He loves those who purify themselves.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 222]

Can you see your life again! Deliberately going against Allah's injuctions! I arrest my case!

S e X is also forbidden during Ramadan. Does it mean she is haram for you altogether? Or it's just the timing? Blood is the problem and not the vagina or her body.

Can you provide a Quranic verse that forbids anal intercourse? During menstruatuon even vagina s e X is forbidden. Not because you can't touch her part or her organ is forbidden but because of the blood. So why are you not content with the fact that scholars who are wiser and more knowledgeable than your generations grade the act as makruh and not haram? Anal s e X and any s e X during menstruation are different entirely. And there's an outright prohibition in the Quran of intercourse during menstruation but no outright prohibition on anal intercourse. Allah (swt) only saw it enough to tell us to approach them from the front. He did not say "do not approach from the back". The hadiths shed light on that. And scholars discourage it. Now whether it's makruh or haram, it is discouraged. And personally, it's a distasteful act. But you have to know that the religion is not based on personal tastes and dislikes. That's why in the shariah there are five ways of grading an act (halal, haram, makruh, mubah and mustahab).

Please don't reply with more foolishness and a flow of takfirism based on ignorance and hatred and devoid of rational thinking. Know that this would be my last post on anything other than mut'ah to respect the wish of brother Albaqir.

SALAM.

MrOlai:

Another agent of shaytan! ...misinterpreting Allah's word!
Below are clear statements from the Prophet(SAW) on that verse of the Quran:
There are many saheeh ahaadeeth which show that anal intercourse is haraam. Anal intercourse with one's wife is a major sin in Islam.
The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) cursed the one who does this: "Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum" (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 2/479; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5865)
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who has intercourse with his wife in her back passage has disavowed himself of that which was revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (3904); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a woman in her back passage.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1165); classed as saheeh by Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid in al-Ilmaam (2/660) and by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
It was narrated that Khuzaymah ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah is not too shy to tell the truth” three times. “Do not have intercourse with women in their back passages.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1924); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Some people imagine that it is permissible to have intercourse with one’s wife in her back passage. They understand from the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] that Allaah has permitted everything in this verse, even intercourse in the back passage. This misinterpretation is reinforced for them when they read the hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh – and perhaps this is the hadeeth referred to by the questioner – in which it says: It was narrated that Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Jews used to say that if (the man) had intercourse from behind, the child would be born with a squint. Then the verse “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223] was revealed.
But this is a misunderstanding of the verse. Allaah says “so go to your tilth when or how you will” which means that all variations of intercourse are permitted, so long as it is in the place of tilth, i.e., the vagina, not the back passage. So it is permissible for a man to have intercourse with his wife from behind or from in front or lying on their sides so long as it is in the place of tilth and not the back passage.

The evidence for that is Muslim’s report (1435) of the hadeeth of Jaabir quoted above about the reason for the revelation of this verse, in which it says: If he wishes, when she is lying on her front and if he wishes when she is not lying on her front, so long as that is in only one opening.
In Abu Dawood’s report of the same hadeeth (2163) it says: It was narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir said: I heard Jaabir say: The Jews say that if a man has intercourse with his wife in her vagina from behind, the child will have a squint. Then Allaah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning): “Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth when or how you will” [al-Baqarah 2:223
The Prophet SAWS (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) also said: "The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 1/243; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5918).

those hadiths you give me are for you. not for me. we quote also your books for you.

Anal intercourse is highly undesriable and spoken against by the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and by the Prophet (s) in Shia ahadiths, and also by Shia scholars. but the act in the shariah is not rated "haram". it is makhruh. why is it makruh? and why do Shia scholars, even though they speak up against anal intercourse, they do not say it is haram? this is because in marriage there is sanctity, and it is a union between a man and a woman. if the two choose to do something, who will punish married couple in their bedroom? the woman is halal for the man and he too is halal for her. since marriage is a halal act and it brought them together, what two of them do is under the roof of marriage which is HALAL. their relationship which is HALAL can have nothing under its roof graded as HARAM. this is a purely fiqh (jurisprudence) issue. it DOES NOT mean the Shia PROMOTE anal intercourse. it means marriage is respected as such that religion itself does not encroach about how they conduct themselves within the bounds of the marriage which is a HALAL act and SUNNAH. not everything "NOT GOOD" in Islam is haram in the Shariah. likewise, not everything GOOD is WAJIB or HALAL.

you can further take a look on one of the largest Shia online resource:

"Acts not Recommended
Makrūh [Discouraged] acts

1. Anal intercourse25

Anal intercourse is permissible with the consent of the wife; however, it is a strongly disliked act.
Zaid ibne Shabith narrates that a person asked Imām °Alī (as): “Can you get close to a woman from her behind?” Imām °Alī (as) replied: “Be down with you! Allāh lowers you by this means (of entering a lady). Have you not heard the words of your Lord that is narrated from Lut who said to his community: “What! Do you commit an outrage none in the world ever committed before you?’”26 and 27

There are some who justify this act with the following verse of the Qur`an:

“Your women are a tillage for you, so come to your tillage whenever you like.”28

However, Imām as-Ŝādiq (as), in his tafsir of the above verse of the Noble Qur`an narrates that: “The intention of this verse is that sexual intercourse should be performed from the front, for the reason that the wife in this verse has been compared to tillage (a cultivated land) that gives produce (from the top of the land), which is (just like) the front of the wife because this is from where (children) come into existence and into this world.”29

Abū Baŝīr narrates that he asked Imām (as) what the ruling is of someone who gets close to his wife from the back. The Imām considered this act unacceptable and said: “Stay away from the back of the wife and the meaning of the Noble verse of Surat al-Baqarah (above) is not that you can enter the wife from wherever you want, but rather (it is that you should) perform sexual intercourse, and therefore the meaning of the verse is that get close to your wife at whatever time that you want to.”30"

http://www.al-islam.org/from-marriage-to-parenthood-heavenly-path-abbas-and-shaheen-merali/chapter-2-sexual-etiquette#makr%C5%ABh-discouraged-acts

Newnas:
Allah the most high -after praising the companions i.e ansaar and muhaajiroon said - praised the next generation of believers and described them thus;
And those who came after them say; "Our Lord! forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in faith, and put not in our hearts hatred for those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness Most Merciful. (al-Hashr;10)
Aishah (the beloved wife of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam) said to urwah bn Zubayr (they were commanded to seek forgiveness for the companions of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam but they insulted them) (Muslim; 3022)
Anas bn Malik may Allah be pleased with him reported from the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam (The sign of Eeman is loving the Ansaar and the sign of hypocrisy is hating the Ansaar) (Bukharee; 3789 and Muslim;74)
And Abu Sa'eed alKuhudree said, the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam said "Do not insult my companions, if one of you spent the size of (mount) Uhud in gold it wouldn't equate a handful of one of them even half of it" (Bukharee; 3673 and Muslim; 2541).

get this clear: you do not speak on behalf of the companions as a whole. there are companions the Shia greatly respect and the Sunnis frown upon and tarnish their image. e.g. Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, Hujr Ibn Adi.

the Sunnis insult Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra) and consider him an hypocrite because he was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) and also a companion of the Prophet (sa) who did not contain himself with propagating the truth and abiding by the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),but he rose up with the sword to avenge the tragedy of Karbala and the blood of Imam Hussain (as) and killed those who stood against Imam Hussain (as),the grandson of the Prophet (sa).

Muawiya the founder of the Sunni sect killed companions of the Prophet (sa).and there are Sunnis up to this day who have gone as far as finding justification why Muawiya (who the Prophet described in unappealing terms) killed Hujr Ibn Adi (ra),a pious companion.there are even Sunnis (the wahhabis particularly) who honor Yazeed,the killer of Imam Hussain (as).what do you say about someone who would honor an enemy of the Prophet's (sa) blood and who ordered for Hussain's (as) blood to be shed?

the Shia honor and greatly love companions like Ammar Ibn Yassir,Bilal al-Habashi,Abu Dhar al-Ghifari,Salman al-Farisi e.t.c. who are all companions of Prophet Muhammad (sa),who were active Shia of Imam Ali (as) and stood by the truth.

it is only people who have limited the definition of being a companion of the Prophet (sa) to refer to those who disobeyed the Prophet (sa),harmed his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and went ahead to ride the tide of Islam for their personal glory and name and use it as title to promote their ill-gotten "virtues",that think "companions of the Prophet" only refer to a few individuals.there were thousands of companions.the companions of the Prophet (sa) are not limited to abu bakr and umar.it is that fair to accept.so do not accuse the Shia of insulting the "companions of the Prophet".that is a baseless allegation.just the way there were companions Sunnis dislike,there are also companions Shia dislike.it makes more noise when it is abu bakr and Umar because of the power they usurped from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and particularly Imam Ali (as).in this respect,as far as i do not insult them,there is no need for any Sunni to feel offended.and Almighty Allah be my witness that if i have ever used insults to address those men i regret that.we Shia are not trained to insult anyone.that is not part of being Muslims.we only send La'nat on the wrongdoers,hypocrites,tyrants,and oppressors because sending la'nat (which is translated to mean "curse" ) is a sunnah of Allah even in the Quran.in that case do not feel offended because the entire history of division in islam and the disagreement boil down to the actions by abu bakr and umar the Shia object to.this is a sincere objection that should be addressed in an academic way.we should be able to prove to you how they disobeyed the Prophet (sa) and what the Prophet (sa) foretold about how those among his closest companions would deviate and prophesied they would be taken away from him into hell fire.

now let us see what the Prophet (sa) had said about his companions.please when going through these hadiths,let us keep in mind this Quranic verse and pay attention to the highlighted part:

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment".
Quran [9:101]

now let us quote hadith .and there are many narrators who reported this hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.584
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake
Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from
me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You
do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after
you." (also Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54)


Review these:

www.abubakr.org


"Abu Bakr and his follower attempted to assassinate Prophet (saw) in Aqaba"
http://najah.info/2.%20Followers/group/bakri%20assassinated%20prophet.html

Newnas:

Last time I checked it was the shia who had the aqeedah of taqiyyah! It enabled them to lie and still give it a spiritual justification.
Your Sheikh alQummiyy said;
التقية واجبة من تركها كان بمنزلة من ترك الصلاة
"at-taqiyyah is obligatory whoever leaves it is like the one who leaves Solah". (al-i'tiqaadaat pg 104)
and alkulaynee narrated from ja'far as-Soodiq that he said;
التقية من ديني و دين آبائي ،و لا إيمان لمن لا تقية له"
at-taqiyyah is part of my religion and the religion of my fathers, and whoever has no eeman has no taqiyyah" (Usoolul Kaafee 2/219)
And he reported from Abu AbdiLLaah that he said;
إن تسعة أعشار الدين من التقية، و لا دين لمن لا تقية له، و التقية في كل شيء إلا في النبيذ، و المسح على الخفين
Indeed a ninth of ten (parts) of the religion is taqiyyah, and there is no religion for the one who has no taqiyyah, and taqiyyah applies to everything except wine and wiping over the khuff (leather socks)
(Usuulul Kaafee 2/217)
I can keep quoting from your books.
Maybe you need glasses to see the names and pages of the books I referenced.
If only you would repent and return to the sunnah of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam and love those whom Allah loves (The companions and household of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam) and never bear grudges against them. If only you would repent, if only you would repent.
Allah the most high -after praising the companions i.e ansaar and muhaajiroon said - praised the next generation of believers and described them thus;
And those who came after them say; "Our Lord! forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in faith, and put not in our hearts hatred for those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness Most Merciful. (al-Hashr;10)
Aishah (the beloved wife of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam) said to urwah bn Zubayr (they were commanded to seek forgiveness for the companions of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam but they insulted them) (Muslim; 3022)
Anas bn Malik may Allah be pleased with him reported from the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam (The sign of Eeman is loving the Ansaar and the sign of hypocrisy is hating the Ansaar) (Bukharee; 3789 and Muslim;74)
And Abu Sa'eed alKuhudree said, the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam said "Do not insult my companions, if one of you spent the size of (mount) Uhud in gold it wouldn't equate a handful of one of them even half of it" (Bukharee; 3673 and Muslim; 2541).

cant you guys stick to a topic? why running from one topic to another as diversion? the references contained in the body of the article are not valid. can you validate them with scan copies? can you tell us where the Najaf Sheikg Hassan al-Musawy made the statement attributed to him? you just attribute words to someone without evidence where and when he made the statement?

you are being asked to amend one problem, you rushed to create more. so mut'ah is "haram", and taqiyyah is also "haram". then what is halal? check the position of the Quran on Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is halal and an Islamic concept as per the Quran. then you brought up the issue of the companions. get this clear: you do not speak on behalf of the companions as a whole. there are companions the Shia greatly respect and the Sunnis frown upon and tarnish their image. e.g. Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, Hujr Ibn Adi.

the Sunnis insult Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra) and consider him an hypocrite because he was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) and also a companion of the Prophet (sa) who did not contain himself with propagating the truth and abiding by the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),but he rose up with the sword to avenge the tragedy of Karbala and the blood of Imam Hussain (as) and killed those who stood against Imam Hussain (as),the grandson of the Prophet (sa).

Muawiya the founder of the Sunni sect killed companions of the Prophet (sa).and there are Sunnis up to this day who have gone as far as finding justification why Muawiya (who the Prophet described in unappealing terms) killed Hujr Ibn Adi (ra),a pious companion.there are even Sunnis (the wahhabis particularly) who honor Yazeed,the killer of Imam Hussain (as).what do you say about someone who would honor an enemy of the Prophet's (sa) blood and who ordered for Hussain's (as) blood to be shed?

the Shia honor and greatly love companions like Ammar Ibn Yassir,Bilal al-Habashi,Abu Dhar al-Ghifari,Salman al-Farisi e.t.c. who are all companions of Prophet Muhammad (sa),who were active Shia of Imam Ali (as) and stood by the truth.

it is only people who have limited the definition of being a companion of the Prophet (sa) to refer to those who disobeyed the Prophet (sa),harmed his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and went ahead to ride the tide of Islam for their personal glory and name and use it as title to promote their ill-gotten "virtues",that think "companions of the Prophet" only refer to a few individuals.there were thousands of companions.the companions of the Prophet (sa) are not limited to abu bakr and umar.it is that fair to accept.so do not accuse the Shia of insulting the "companions of the Prophet".that is a baseless allegation.just the way there were companions Sunnis dislike,there are also companions Shia dislike.it makes more noise when it is abu bakr and Umar because of the power they usurped from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and particularly Imam Ali (as).in this respect,as far as i do not insult them,there is no need for any Sunni to feel offended.and Almighty Allah be my witness that if i have ever used insults to address those men i regret that.we Shia are not trained to insult anyone.that is not part of being Muslims.we only send La'nat on the wrongdoers,hypocrites,tyrants,and oppressors because sending la'nat (which is translated to mean "curse" ) is a sunnah of Allah even in the Quran.in that case do not feel offended because the entire history of division in islam and the disagreement boil down to the actions by abu bakr and umar the Shia object to.this is a sincere objection that should be addressed in an academic way.we should be able to prove to you how they disobeyed the Prophet (sa) and what the Prophet (sa) foretold about how those among his closest companions would deviate and prophesied they would be taken away from him into hell fire.

now let us see what the Prophet (sa) had said about his companions.please when going through these hadiths,let us keep in mind this Quranic verse and pay attention to the highlighted part:

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment".
Quran [9:101]

now let us quote hadith .and there are many narrators who reported this hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.584
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake
Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from
me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You
do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after
you." (also Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54)


Review these:

www.abubakr.org


"Abu Bakr and his follower attempted to assassinate Prophet (saw) in Aqaba"
http://najah.info/2.%20Followers/group/bakri%20assassinated%20prophet.html

kidnapping is criminal, unjustified and should be condemned by all. good move from the IMN.

Newnas:



Last time I checked it was the shia who had the aqeedah of taqiyyah! It enabled them to lie and still give it a spiritual justification.
Your Sheikh alQummiyy said;

ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﻛﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻤﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ
"at-taqiyyah is obligatory whoever leaves it is like the one who leaves Solah". (al-i'tiqaadaat pg 104)

and alkulaynee narrated from ja'far as-Soodiq that he said;

ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻭ ﺩﻳﻦ ﺁﺑﺎﺋﻲ ،ﻭ ﻻ ﺇﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﻟﻤﻦ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻪ "
at-taqiyyah is part of my religion and the religion of my fathers, and whoever has no eeman has no taqiyyah" (Usoolul Kaafee 2/219)

And he reported from Abu AbdiLLaah that he said;

ﺇﻥ ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﺃﻋﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ، ﻭ ﻻ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻟﻤﻦ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻪ، ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻴﺬ، ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﻴﻦ
Indeed a ninth of ten (parts) of the religion is taqiyyah, and there is no religion for the one who has no taqiyyah, and taqiyyah applies to everything except wine and wiping over the khuff (leather socks)
(Usuulul Kaafee 2/217)

I can keep quoting from your books.

Maybe you need glasses to see the names and pages of the books I referenced.

If only you would repent and return to the sunnah of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam and love those whom Allah loves (The companions and household of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam) and never bear grudges against them. If only you would repent, if only you would repent.
Allah the most high -after praising the companions i.e ansaar and muhaajiroon said - praised the next generation of believers and described them thus;

And those who came after them say; "Our Lord! forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in faith, and put not in our hearts hatred for those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness Most Merciful. (al-Hashr;10)

Aishah (the beloved wife of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam) said to urwah bn Zubayr (they were commanded to seek forgiveness for the companions of Allah's messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam but they insulted them) (Muslim; 3022)

Anas bn Malik may Allah be pleased with him reported from the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam (The sign of Eeman is loving the Ansaar and the sign of hypocrisy is hating the Ansaar) (Bukharee; 3789 and Muslim;74)

And Abu Sa'eed alKuhudree said, the messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam said "Do not insult my companions, if one of you spent the size of (mount) Uhud in gold it wouldn't equate a handful of one of them even half of it" (Bukharee; 3673 and Muslim; 2541).

cant you guys stick to a topic? why running from one topic to another as diversion? the references contained in the body of the article are not valid. can you validate them with scan copies? can you tell us where the Najaf Sheikg Hassan al-Musawy made the statement attributed to him? you just attribute words to someone without evidence where and when he made the statement?

you are being asked to amend one problem, you rushed to create more. so mut'ah is "haram", and taqiyyah is also "haram". then what is halal? check the position of the Quran on Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is halal and an Islamic concept as per the Quran. then you brought up the issue of the companions. get this clear: you do not speak on behalf of the companions as a whole. there are companions the Shia greatly respect and the Sunnis frown upon and tarnish their image. e.g. Mukhtar al-Thaqafi, Hujr Ibn Adi.

the Sunnis insult Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra) and consider him an hypocrite because he was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) and also a companion of the Prophet (sa) who did not contain himself with propagating the truth and abiding by the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),but he rose up with the sword to avenge the tragedy of Karbala and the blood of Imam Hussain (as) and killed those who stood against Imam Hussain (as),the grandson of the Prophet (sa).

Muawiya the founder of the Sunni sect killed companions of the Prophet (sa).and there are Sunnis up to this day who have gone as far as finding justification why Muawiya (who the Prophet described in unappealing terms) killed Hujr Ibn Adi (ra),a pious companion.there are even Sunnis (the wahhabis particularly) who honor Yazeed,the killer of Imam Hussain (as).what do you say about someone who would honor an enemy of the Prophet's (sa) blood and who ordered for Hussain's (as) blood to be shed?

the Shia honor and greatly love companions like Ammar Ibn Yassir,Bilal al-Habashi,Abu Dhar al-Ghifari,Salman al-Farisi e.t.c. who are all companions of Prophet Muhammad (sa),who were active Shia of Imam Ali (as) and stood by the truth.

it is only people who have limited the definition of being a companion of the Prophet (sa) to refer to those who disobeyed the Prophet (sa),harmed his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and went ahead to ride the tide of Islam for their personal glory and name and use it as title to promote their ill-gotten "virtues",that think "companions of the Prophet" only refer to a few individuals.there were thousands of companions.the companions of the Prophet (sa) are not limited to abu bakr and umar.it is that fair to accept.so do not accuse the Shia of insulting the "companions of the Prophet".that is a baseless allegation.just the way there were companions Sunnis dislike,there are also companions Shia dislike.it makes more noise when it is abu bakr and Umar because of the power they usurped from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and particularly Imam Ali (as).in this respect,as far as i do not insult them,there is no need for any Sunni to feel offended.and Almighty Allah be my witness that if i have ever used insults to address those men i regret that.we Shia are not trained to insult anyone.that is not part of being Muslims.we only send La'nat on the wrongdoers,hypocrites,tyrants,and oppressors because sending la'nat (which is translated to mean "curse" ) is a sunnah of Allah even in the Quran.in that case do not feel offended because the entire history of division in islam and the disagreement boil down to the actions by abu bakr and umar the Shia object to.this is a sincere objection that should be addressed in an academic way.we should be able to prove to you how they disobeyed the Prophet (sa) and what the Prophet (sa) foretold about how those among his closest companions would deviate and prophesied they would be taken away from him into hell fire.

now let us see what the Prophet (sa) had said about his companions.please when going through these hadiths,let us keep in mind this Quranic verse and pay attention to the highlighted part:

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment".
Quran [9:101]

now let us quote hadith .and there are many narrators who reported this hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.584
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake
Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from
me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You
do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after
you." (also Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54)


Review these:

www.abubakr.org


"Abu Bakr and his follower attempted to assassinate Prophet (saw) in Aqaba"
http://najah.info/2.%20Followers/group/bakri%20assassinated%20prophet.html

MrOlai:

You cannot use your Taqiya to deceive people anymore! This is information age. This is a fatwa from your scholar, Ayatollah Sistani on Anal Sex:
Question: Is anal intercourse permissible.?
Answer:Anal intercourse is permissible if wife is consenting but it is strongly undesirable (makrooh).
Ayatullah Sistani
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/
Is this Islam? Is this what the Prophet(SAW) taught? Is this what Allah(SWT) commanded us to do?

good you provided a link for the new topic diversion you brought forth. do the same for the other claims in that baseless article.

why are you showing desperation and frustration? my post was in response to an article without source and references. the article posted is not about anal intercourse per se. it is about mutah and exchanging wives as the article claims. back up your article and claims or shut up.

as for anal intercourse between a husband and wife, this is a diversion. you will keep on pulling one red herring to another, thereby exposing more of your ignorance and empty emotions that have no basis in Islam. the point of Shia Islam is that a married couple can choose how to derive pleasure form themselves as far as harm is not caused. the case of anal is that it is makrooh (undesirable) but not haram (forbidden) if the couple both consent.

what is the stance of the Holy Quran on anal intercourse? is it a "no no" question? or a matter of conscience?

"Your wives (are) a tilth for you, so come (to) your tilth when you wish, and send forth (good deeds) for yourselves. And be conscious (of) Allah and know that you (will) meet Him. And give glad tidings (to) the believers." (Holy Quran 2:223)

MrOlai:
Hmmm! Wonders shall never seize!

what is the source of the article (posted by newnas)? no source!

what is the source or reference for the alleged words of the scholars you quoted? no source!

the references you gave in the content cannot be found or validated.

now answer this: do you believe the rubbish you either made up/copied, or do you simply not care whether it is credible or not, but you want others to believe it because "the end justifies the means"; and whatever causes damage to the name and image of the Shia, you are good with it?

it is not surprising, and not shocking. these are your ways that the Wahhabi ideology has made you follow.

MrOlai:

Go and preach to harlots and prostitutes to repent! Stop commiting adultery with them! Stop committing adultery with girls/women in the name of mut'ah! That's the message!

do not be childish please. this is an act it is agreed the Prophet (s) had permitted, regardless whether you believe it was later on in the long run forbidden by him or by someone else, and regardless if there are people who abuse the practice. so your sentiments and emotions are not rational assertions.

what is the source of the article? no source!

what is the source or reference for the alleged words of the scholars you quoted? no source!

the references you gave in the content cannot be found or validated.

now answer this: do you believe the rubbish you either made up/copied, or do you simply not care whether it is credible or not, but you want others to believe it because "the end justifies the means"; and whatever causes damage to the name and image of the Shia, you are good with it?

it is not surprising, and not shocking. these are your ways that the Wahhabi ideology has made you follow.

@brother Albaqir, and bro sino,

the term "forever" and "till the day of judgment" may not be found in the hadith of the alleged prohibition in Khaybar. but they are found in the hadith of the alleged prohibition in Fath Makkah. and that is the third event during which it is narrated it was forbidden. thereafter, there are other events after the "forever prohibition" that it is again narrated that mut'ah was permitted, and then "prohibited forever". so this "forever prohibition" that does not hold water. if it was not prohibited "forever" at Khaybar, as it is evident and agreed it was later permitted and prohibited in the conquest of Makkah, then when was it forbidden "forever"? we can then cling on to the argument that the prohibitions are not "forever". and if you can bring us the hadith with the first "forever prohibition", then you will face problem because the "forever prohibition" followed another and another and another "forever prohibition". so when was it "forever"?

please check for the number of times of the "forever prohibitions" are said to have occurred:

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/was-it-abrogated-by-sunnah.html

MrOlai:

You have no shame at all! I don't have your time! I'm done with you!

to say a harlot can repent and mend her ways is a "shameful thing"; but to defend those who oppressed and harmed the Prophet's (s) Ahlul-Bayt (a) by saying the oppressors could have repented just before death (even though there is no evidence for such) is not a shameful thing to people like you?

Six: Mut’ah yet again became Halal at the Farwell Pilgrimage despite it being ‘permanenlty’ made haram on ‘five’ previous occasions

Although Mut’ah had already previously been made Haram ‘forever’ until the day of Resurrection, on five separate occasions in alleged ‘Sahih’ Sunni Hadiths, Sunni literature points to this outlawed practice being made HALAL for the sixth time at the time of the farewell pilgrimage (Hujatul Wid’a) in the 10th year of Hijri. This Sahih hadith can be found with different chains of narration in:
1. Sunnan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1778
2. Mustakhraj Abi ‘Awana, Hadith 3241
3. Sunnah Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 1952

In this tradition, once again Sabra is saying that the Holy Prophet told them to perform Mut’ah with women at Hujjat-ul-Wid’a (10th hijri) and after some time Mut’ah was again made permanently Haram until the day of Resurrection.

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/was-it-abrogated-by-sunnah.html


My Comment:

the use of the terms "forever" and "until the day of resurrection" in Sunni "Sahih" literature, and after which it is later on reported that mut'ah was made HALAL and then again "forever forbidden", and the same thing keep happening severally on historical events ( "forever forbidden" and then made "halal", so on and so forth) points to the fact that something is really FISHY! there is foul play. what does "forever" means?

@sino,

Albaqir made a very GOOD point that according to the Sunni hadiths of prohibition on mut'ah you have, it was purported through Imam Ali (as) that mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (s) in Khaybar FOREVER. and that was the account Imam Ali (as) is purported to have used against Ibn Abbas when the later was practicing it. yet, you also uphold another hadith as "sahih" which states the Prophet (s) forbade mut'ah (again) FOREVER in the conquest of Makkah about a year or two after the first "FOREVER PROHIBITION" in Khaybar. isnt that ridiculous? you guys have two "forverer prohibitions". per your arguments, it means in between, the Prophet (s) disregarded his alleged "first forever" prohibition to allow it for a period before he made another "forever prohibition". so the Prophet (s) did not know what "forever" means? that is to tell you it was never prohibited by the Prophet (s) but people who wanted to put words into the mouth of both the Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (as).

mut'ah is not an obligatory act. so whhy the stress? of course, the issue goes beyond mut'ah. it becomes a matter of bid'ah and who changed the sunnah of the Prophet (s) and added his own views and verdicts into the religion. you are trying hard to cover up for your hero who was the person who did ijtihad and passed his own view as a new law overruling the teachings of the Prophet (s). that is the crux of the matter.

SALAM.

slinkky:
If this your day dreaming ever come true we are finished in zaria. Now Zakzaky holds no governmental powers, He and his followers are operating with impunity with no regards to the rights of other zaria residents.

this dream is far fetched as the IMN is not a political movement. They may only punish the APC in future elections by giving massive votes to the opposition.

Mentioning "other Zaria residents", are you talking of the same Zaria residents who were videoed stealing from the corpses of the Shia civilians after the killings?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEu4YHa7bqs

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr: Saudi Arabia executes top Shia cleric



Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, seen here in an undated photograph, was a vocal critic of the Saudi authorities

Saudi Arabia has executed the prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the interior ministry said.

He was among 47 put to death after being convicted of terrorism offences, it said in a statement.

Sheikh Nimr was a vocal supporter of the mass anti-government protests that erupted in Eastern Province in 2011, where a Shia majority have long complained of marginalisation.

Shia-lead Iran said Saudi Arabia would pay a "high price" for the execution.

A foreign ministry spokesman said Riyadh "supports terrorists... while executing and suppressing critics inside the country".

Iran is the main regional rival of Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia.

The executions were carried out simultaneously in 12 locations across Saudi Arabia.

Those also put to death include Sunnis convicted of involvement in al-Qaeda-linked terror attacks in 2003.

Of the 47 executed, one was a Chadian national while another was Egyptian. The rest are Saudis.

The cleric's nephew, Ali al-Nimr, who was 17 when he was arrested following the demonstrations, was not listed as one of those killed.
Sectarian fears

Protests broke out in early 2011 in the oil-rich Eastern Province in the wake of the Arab Spring.

Sheikh Nimr's arrest in the following year, during which he was shot, triggered days of protests in which three people were killed.

His death sentence was confirmed in October 2014, with his family saying he had been found guilty among other charges of seeking "foreign meddling" in the kingdom.

Sheikh Nimr has been a persistent critic of Saudi Arabia's Sunni royal family, but his supporters say he supported only peaceful demonstrations and eschewed all violent opposition to the government.

His brother, Mohammed al-Nimr, said he hoped any reaction to the execution would be peaceful.

But an MP in Iraq's governing Shia coalition said the death aimed at "provoking sectarian fighting", while Lebanon's Shia council called it a "grave mistake", Reuters reported.

Police in Bahrain, which has seen tensions between the majority Shia population and its Sunni rulers, are reported to have fired tear gas on protesters angry at the execution.

Saudi authorities deny discriminating against Shia and blame Iran for stirring up discontent.

Saudi Arabia carried out more than 150 executions last year, the highest figure recorded by human rights groups for 20 years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35213244

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRh_-CkBgE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSEG34wxgaY

Saudi Arabia executes opposition Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr

Tear gas fired at dozens of people protesting cleric's execution, witness tells Reuters

The Associated Press Posted: Jan 02, 2016 5:35 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 02, 2016 5:54 AM ET

[img]http://i.cbc.ca/1.3387126.1451730679!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/bahrain-protest.jpg[/img]
A protester runs, while holding a flag, to take cover from tear gas fired by riot police during clashes at an anti-government demonstration in the village of Sitra south of Manama, Bahrain January 1, 2016. (Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters)

Saudi Arabia executed 47 prisoners convicted of terrorism charges on Saturday, including al-Qaeda detainees and a prominent Shia cleric who was a central figure in 2011 Arab Spring-inspired protests in the kingdom.

The killing of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr may spark new unrest among Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, largely concentrated in the kingdom's east, and in Bahrain, which has seen low-level violence since 2011 protests by its Shia majority demanding greater rights from its Sunni monarchy.

The execution of al-Qaeda militants convicted over deadly bombings and shootings in Saudi Arabia raised concerns over revenge attacks. The extremist group's branch in Yemen, known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, warned Saudi security forces last month of violence if they carried out executions of members of the global network.

Bahrain police fired tear gas at several dozen people protesting al-Nimr's execution, an eyewitness said.

Demonstrators carrying pictures of the cleric faced security forces in a standoff in the Shia Muslim village of Abu-Saiba, west of the capital Manama.

Activists have called for protests in the Sunni-ruled island kingdom, a sign that al-Nimr's death may inflame already raging sectarian tensions in the Middle East.
Cleric was critical of Bahrain monarchy

The cleric's name was on a list of the 47 carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency. It cited the Interior Ministry for the information. Saudi state television also reported the executions.

Of those executed, Saudi Arabia said 45 were Saudi citizens, one was from Chad and another was from Egypt.

Saudi Arabia said a royal court order was issued to implement the sentences after all appeals had been exhausted. The executions were carried out Saturday in the capital, Riyadh, and 12 other cities and towns, it said.

Al-Nimr had been a vocal critic of Bahrain's Sunni-led monarchy, which harshly suppressed the 2011 Shia-led protests. Saudi Arabia sent troops to help Bahrain quash the uprising, fearing it would spread.

Amnesty International has called the verdict against the cleric, who was in his mid-50s, part of a campaign by Saudi authorities to "crush all dissent."

Before his arrest in 2012, al-Nimr had said the people do not want rulers who kill and carry out injustices against protesters. He was asked at his trial if he disapproves of the Al Saud ruling family.

"If injustice stops against Shiites in the east, then (at that point) I can have a different opinion," the cleric responded, according to his brother Mohammed, who attended court sessions and spoke to The Associated Press before the verdict.

[img]http://i.cbc.ca/1.3387127.1451730727!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/saudi-shi-ites.jpg[/img]
A Shia protester carries a poster of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr during a demonstration outside the Saudi embassy in Sanaa Oct. 18, 2014. (Khaled Abdullah/Reuters)
157 executions in 2015

Al-Nimr did not deny the political charges against him, but said he never carried weapons or called for violence.

In announcing the verdicts, Saudi state television showed mugshots of all those executed. Al-Nimr was No. 46, expressionless with a grey beard, his head covered with the red-and-white scarf traditionally worn by Saudi men.

After listing the names and images of those executed, Saudi state television showed black-and-white footage of previous terror attacks in the kingdom, one showing bodies in a mosque after an attack. Soft, traditional music played in the background.

Saudi Arabia carried out at least 157 executions in 2015, with beheadings reaching their highest level in the kingdom in two decades, according to several advocacy groups that monitor the death penalty worldwide.

Coinciding with the rise in executions is the number of people executed for non-lethal offences that judges have wide discretion to rule on, particularly drug-related crimes.
Nimr execution is 'crime,' says Iraq

Saudi Arabia's ruling family committed a crime by executing al-Nimr, according to al-Ahd TV.

"The execution of Sheikh al-Nimr is a crime that is added to the criminal record of Al Saud," Kataib Hezbollah's leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes said.

Al-Ahd is owned by another Iranian backed group, Asaib Ahl al-Haq.
with files from Reuters
© The Associated Press, 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/saudi-arabia-executes-nimr-al-nimr-1.3387125

Hon. Ebenezer's reaction to the Advertorial video clip of the Nigerian Govt

Friday, 01 January 2016 07:05

I had watched a paid Advertorial on AIT this night against the Shiite Islamic Movement. It all suddenly reminded me of the callous, unethical and unprecedented and disgusting campaign of hate ran by the same station against the Person of President Muhammadu Buhari GCFR during the elections.

They showed some tactical Kungfu training by the Islamic Movement purpotedly held home and abroad which they described as military training in their perverted heart to deceive gullible public opinion. No! those were physical education training for keeping feet, self defence, mental alertness and sublime human discipline. I had such training when I was in Secondary School. The Nigerian Youth Coppers undergoes same relative training. Again all over the World, the Shiite procession is a part of their religious rites.

So inconveniences that are periodical and occasional could not be treated as public disturbances that can not be tolerated if we have love, patience and self-accommodation and religious tolerance.
Thirdly, I had the AIT advertorial saying the Islamic Movement imported large numbers of arms and ammunition into the country. But in showed resistance to the Military at that point of encounter, the military could not have killed hundreds of people without one single military man killed even if it means shooting from the unknown crowd. But no single military man was killed.

No arms was displayed except some branded sticks and may be knives . And don't forget; the Islamic Movement has also been a subject of constant attacks by Boko Haram. Honestly so much mischief and lies are being woven together frantically against the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.

The Advertorial is non-sensical, prejudiced, highly provocative and grossly insensitive of the mood of the nation and the entire episodes is bearing a characteristic of a false-flags. It visibly demonstrated that the invisible hands of those bent on destabilizing Nigeria are involved. Let all be careful. Once again! I am not a Muslim. I am a strong Christian with Revelations of Christ. But I detest lies, falsehood, fabrication and naked injustice.

Why is it that at the 2 times the Military had confrontations with the Islamic Movement last year they killed Zakzaky sons and this last one again they killed his sons.

Something definitely is not adding up. These certainly cannot be been coincidence and honestly if this group has been militarized and violence prone as the unintelligible Advertorial want us to believe; the killing of their members in a disproportionate manner and particularly the two times killing of their Leader's Zakzaky sons is enough to ignite wide range violence. But they have in the face of it all remains calm.

Our precious Military men are no longer a colonialists Armies of occupation. They are now called The Nigerian Army. We own them, they belong to us and are constituted in a civilised manner to suite our own system and sovereignty.

Let's apologise to the Islamic Movement and reconcile. While thorough investigation that is independent and factual is carried out. Those sponsors of this unintelligible Advertorial should stop insulting our sensibility!

Hon. Ebenezer Oyetakin. Executive Secretary Anti-Corruption Network.

http://islamicmovement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2332:ebenezer-reacton-to-army-video-clip&catid=41:frontpage

REJOINDER TO DR AHMAD GUMI: IRAN SUPPLIES WEAPONS TO SHIITES

Wednesday, 30 December 2015 14:55

By Nasir Hashim

Several times in the recent past, Dr Ahmed Gumi made calls on security agents to launch war on shia Muslims of Nigeria. In 2014, after he had written an open letter to Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky, in which he accused him (El-Zakzaky) of running something of a cultist organization, many people including myself observed that Dr. Ahmad Gumi might be a CIA.

Since then more highlight has been coming out. He now exposed himself as both CIA and Zionist. He is working for them against shia Muslims and by extension, world Muslim community.

In 2009, there was an attempt to assassinate sheik El-Zaakzaky. Infact, the blue print of the operation suggested massacre of Sheikh El-Zakzaky and his followers, at least in Zaria. Allah in his infinite mercy foiled that conspiracy. It was suspected that Yar adua’s administration, supported by some Muslim scholars, was behind the evil plan. At that time some people doubted, and those scholars if their names were mentioned, they would definitely deny. Now I can boldly say, Ahamd Gumi was one of those scholars. Who is in Doubt? In his interview with “Daily Trust” on Tuesday, 29th December 2015, Ahmad Gumi stated “former President Umar Yar adua told me of the massive importation of ammunitions and weapons to different parts of the country, the president had mentioned Iran as supplying arms to Shiites”.

Again, in “Nation Mirror” news paper of 30th December, Ahmad Gumi said “Iran suppliers weapons to El-zakzaky in order to run parallel government. Justice deserves everyone irrespective of one’s religious persuation. Every Nigerian is a witness. On the 12th of December, Nigerian Army opened fire on innocent shia Muslims in Zaria killing about a thousand, injured uncountable and arrested many- sheikh Ibrahim El-zakzaky was among those injured and arrested, and is still in detention. They also bulldozed all physical structures belonging to Shiites, across Zaria. The army neither said Shiites shot them back with those kinds of weapons as mentioned by Dr. Ahmad nor did they say weapons and ammunitions were discovered in the demolished buildings. Even their staged managed video clip showed only a few young men holding sticks, stones and cutlasses-perhaps these are the weapons and ammunitions Iran supplied to Shiekh El-zakzaky in order to run parallel Governments.

From every indication Nigerian government and some Muslim scholars are united against shia Muslims in Nigeria, each Party with its own interest. On one hand, the government is unhappy to see a man not working and under authority commanding respect and loyalty from over 25 million Nigerians. Among others, Nigerian Christians have began to recognize sheikh El- Zakzaky as the only hope for the oppressed – underprivileged and the symbol of unity and justice on African Continent.

On the other, the Muslim scholars, especially wahabbists, are worried of the rapid growth of Shia which may in the long or short run supplant them in all parts of the country. Recently, Wahabbists came to realize that propaganda, falsehood and hate preaches in their praying shops cannot stop the rapid spread of Shia, thus, they opted to evil conspiracies. Having cut down Darikas(Sufis) to size in some places around Nigeria, their only target now is Shia.

Peace, blessing and protection of Allah be upon the rightly guided.

NASIR HASHIM

http://islamicmovement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2321:re-iran-supplies-weapons-to-shiites&catid=35:news-display

List are being compiled of all those killed by the Nigerian Army in the Zaria massacre.

Sunday, 27 December 2015 09:46

From the report emerging the Nigerian Army wiped-out the entire student members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, in the Zaria massacre. Both male & female students, they killed them all in the Zaria massacre.

Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, have a special place in the history of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) because the Movement started from there in 1978. The Leader of IMN, His Eminence Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaky was a product of that glorious University. Most of the leading lights of IMN today are graduates of that University. This poor Writer is a twice graduate of that University.

The reason for making the above assertion is that the students members of IMN were present In the Zaria Husseiniyah for the Flag changing ceremony on that faithful day. Today they are all missing since they are not among those injured in the Zaria massacre & they are not among those in various Police detention facilities. The simple conclusion is that they were among those that were brutally killed by the Nigerian Army & buried in mass graves.

Accurate list are being compiled of all those killed by the Nigerian Army in the Zaria massacre. When the list is out, Nigerians & the world will be more horrified as to that brutal genocide.

May God bless all the Martyrs, give Sabr to their parents & families & heal the injured!

H. Elbinawi

http://www.islamicmovement.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2305:list-of-killed&catid=41:frontpage