The only Nation to appoint a female Sharia judge is Israel

The Jews where up to some serious fuckery and trolling when they did that

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1090226/middle-east

baralatie:

that is my point I don't see Nigeria on that list!
Nigeria judiciary and judicial is a bit more free

Thats because sharia courts are not as powerful as our secular courts

Culled from a Muslim forum...

Is it permissible for a woman to be a judge?.

Praise be to Allaah.
The majority of scholars are of the view that it is not permissible for a woman to be appointed as a judge, and if she is appointed, the one who appointed her is sinning, and her appointment is invalid, and her judgements carry no weight, no matter what ruling she passes. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and of some of the Hanafis.

See: Bidaayat al-Mujtahid (2/531); al-Majmoo’ (20/127); al-Mughni (11/350).

They quoted a number of texts as evidence for that:

1 –Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means”

[al-Nisa’ 4:34]

So the men are the protectors and maintainers of women, in the sense that they are in charge of them. So the verse may be understood as meaning that women cannot be appointed in charge, otherwise women would be the protectors and maintainers of men, which is the opposite of what the verse says.

2 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them”

[al-Baqarah 2:228]

Allaah has granted men a degree over women ,and if a woman were to be appointed as judge that would contradict the degree that Allaah has given men in this verse, because in order for a judge to judge between two disputants, he must have a degree over them.

3 – It was narrated that Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their ruler, he said: “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of their affairs.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4425).

The fuqaha’ quoted this verse as evidence that it is not permissible to appoint a woman as a judge, because lack of prospering is a kind of harm, the causes of which must be avoided. The hadeeth is general in meaning and applies to all positions of public authority. So it is not permissible to appoint a woman, because the word “affairs” is general in meaning and includes all the public affairs of the Muslims.

Al-Shawkaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

There is no stern warning greater than stating that they will never prosper, and the most important issue is to rule according to the rulings of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, and therefore this warning applies more emphatically to women. End quote.

Al-Sayl al-Jaraar (4/273)

The Fatwa Committee of al-Azhar said:

The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not intend by this hadeeth only to state that the people who appoint a woman in charge of their affairs will not prosper, because his task was to explain everything that is permissible for his ummah, so that they may succeed and prosper, and everything that is not permissible for them so that they may be safe from evil and loss. Rather he intended to forbid his ummah from imitating those people (the Persians) by delegating any of their public affairs to a woman, and he used this incident to convey this message to the people who were keen to be prosperous so that they would comply with this advice. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used definitive language to state that lack of prosperity is inevitable when a woman is appointed in charge of any affairs. Undoubtedly the prohibition that is derived from this hadeeth applies to any woman in any era; women are not to be appointed to positions of public authority. This general meaning is understood from the wording of the hadeeth. End quote.

4 – Moreover, the nature of woman means that a woman should not be appointed to a position of public authority.

The Fatwa Committee of al-Azhar said, after mentioning the arguments based on the hadeeth:

This ruling is based on this hadeeth, which is that the ruling that women should not be appointed to positions of public authority is not a ruling which is to be followed as a religious ritual without necessarily understanding the wisdom behind it, rather it is one of the rulings that are based on reasons which are obvious to those who understand the differences between the two types of human beings, men and women. This ruling is not connected to anything other than the femininity which is indicated by the word “woman” in the hadeeth. So femininity alone is the reason. … Because of her nature, woman is designed to fulfil the mission for which she was created, which is the role of mother and caring for and raising children. This means that she is likely to be affected by emotion. In addition to that she is faced with natural events that happen repeatedly over the months and years, which may weaken her strength and resolve in forming opinions and adhering to them and in fighting for them. This is something which women themselves cannot deny, and we do not need to quote examples and evidence to prove the emotional nature of woman throughout the ages. End quote.

5 – Practical experience in some countries indicates that women are not fit to play the role of judge. When Islam forbade women to be appointed to positions of public authority, it brought something that would protect people’s rights and ward off corruption, which is something that is not understood by those who are short-sighted.

In one of the Muslim countries the Ministry of Justice opened the door for talented women to become judges, but after five years they dismissed all of these female judges and banned women from entering the graduate school for judges because of their failure despite the opportunities they had for learning and training, and despite the fact that they got higher grades than the men in the theoretical field.

In another Muslim country women were given the opportunity to become judges, but after they failed the state had to remove them from the courts to the technical and research fields.

This indicates that women are not qualified to be judges.

6 – The judge is required to be present among men’s gatherings and to mix with disputants and witnesses, and may need to be alone with them. Islam seeks to protect women and preserve their honour and dignity, and protect them from those who would toy with them. So Islam tells women to stay in their homes and not go out except in cases of necessity. And it forbids them from mixing with men and being alone with them, because that poses a threat to women and their honour.

7 – The position of judge requires a high level of intelligence, insight and reason, and women have less of these qualities than men, and they have little experience in the affairs of life and disputes.

In addition to that, women are faced with natural phenomena during certain days, months and years, namely menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding etc, which weakens their bodies and affects their understanding of things, which is incompatible with the position and status of a judge.

See: Wilaayat al-Mar’ah fi’l-Fiqh al-Islami (p. 217-250) – Master’s Thesis by Muhammad Anwar.

https://islamqa.info/en/71338

baralatie:

come o
I don't think this is the case in the north sharia courts

Status of women's testimony in Islam

In Islamic law, testimony (shahada) is defined as attestation with regard to a right of a second party against a third. It exists alongside other forms of evidence (bayyina), such as the oath (yamin), acknowledgement (iqrar), and circumstantial evidence (qara'in al-ahwal). A testimony must involve certain knowledge of an affirmed event, and cannot be based on conjecture.[1]

Muzammil H. Siddiqi, a notable scholar from North America, has said the Quran makes very little reference to genders, in regard to testimony.[2]

In cases of hudud, punishments for serious crimes, 12th-century Maliki jurist Averroes wrote that jurists disagree about the status of women's testimony.[3] According to Averroes, most scholars say that in this case women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses.[3] However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions, discussed below), their testimony is acceptable.[3][4][5][6] In case of witnesses for financial documents, the Qur'an asks for two men or one man and two women.[7][8] It is disputed whether this means that a woman's testimony worth half that of a man either in disputes about financial transactions or as a general matter.

On the other hand, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes that Islam asks for two female witnesses against one male, in the case of financial transactions, because this responsibility is not very suited to their temperament, sphere of interest, and usual environment. He argues that Islam makes no claim that a woman's testimony is half in any case.[9] He interprets the Qur'an verse as only a recommendation and argues that it will be for the court judge to decide what kind and whose evidence will be enough to prove a case.[10] Regarding the Prophetic narration, that is used to prove half-testimony status of women, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and members of his foundation Al-Mawrid argue against its reliability[11] and its translation from Arabic.[12] Ghamdi also contends that the narration cannot be used in all general cases because it is related to the Qur'an verse whose subject is related only to financial matters.[citation needed] Another Pakistani religious scholar Ishaq argues that acquiring conclusive evidence is important, regardless of whether it can be obtained from just one man or just one woman.[13]

Ibn al-Qayyim also argued that the verse referred to, relates to the heavy responsibility of testifying by which an owner of wealth protects his rights, not with the decision of a court; the two are completely different from each other.[14] It is also argued that this command shows that the Qur'an does not want to make difficulties for women.[15] Ibn Taymiyya also reasoned the deficiency of using Qur'an 2:282 to prove evidentiary discrimination against women.[16] However, both Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya did believe in the difference of probative value of men's and women's testimony. It is argued that even though Ibn al-Qayyim believed that women were more prone to making errors, instead of concluding a general discrimination from this, women's testimony was to be treated on an individual basis. This is because Ibn al-Qayyim contended that in cases where a woman and man share all the Islamic good qualities of a witness, a woman's testimony corroborated by another woman may actually be considered stronger than the uncorroborated testimony of a man. Additionally, Ibn al-Qayyim also regarded the testimony of some exceptional women like those who transmitted Hadith as doubtlessly greater than a single man of lesser esteem.[17]

In matters other than financial transactions, scholars differ on whether the Qur'anic verses relating to financial transactions apply.[18] This is especially true in the case of bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ (restitution of conjugal rights). According to Averroes, Imam Abu Hanifa believed that their testimony is acceptable in such cases. Imam Malik, on the contrary, believes that their testimony remains unacceptable. For bodily affairs about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances, such as the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth, the majority of scholars hold that the testimony of women alone is acceptable. But the number of women witnesses needed is debated in different Islamic schools of law. Hanafi's and Hanbali's see even one woman enough. According to Maliki's two women are required. As for Shafii's, they see that 4 women are needed.[citation needed]

In certain situations, the scripture accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man's and that her testimony can even invalidate his, such as when a man accuses his wife of unchastity.[19]

Classical commentators commonly explained the unequal treatment of testimony by asserting that women's nature made them more prone to error than men. Muslim modernists have followed the Egyptian reformer Muhammad Abduh in viewing the relevant scriptural passages as conditioned on the different gender roles and life experiences that prevailed at the time rather than women's innately inferior mental capacities, making the rule not generally applicable in all times and places.[20]

Countries where in some cases a woman's testimony is worth half of that of a man:

Bahrain (in Sharia courts)
Egypt (in family courts)
Iran (in most cases)
Iraq (in some cases)
Jordan (in Sharia courts)
Kuwait (in family courts)
Libya (in some cases)
Morocco (in family cases)
Palestine (in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody)
Qatar (in family law matters)
Saudi Arabia (Never)
Syria (in Sharia courts)
United Arab Emirates (in some civil matters)
Yemen (not allowed to testify at all in cases of adultery and retribution)

Mindfulness:


As your brain is.

Next stop is constanipole

Mindfulness:


I am not a Muslim but you are definitely a mo.ron.

The caluphate is dead and buried

Get used to it

superstar1:
Is it not funny that her religion cannot even allow her to be a Sharia Lawyer?

Her religion doesn't even allow her presence in a mosque

Multiple random diks are to blame

See as she bonga fish

Coming from someone who isnt allowed inside a mosque

Mindfulness:


When you mention the achievements, do not forget the atrocities Russia committed on other European countries. Your celebration of Russia as a saint nation is laughable when in fact many countries suffered under Russia like African countries suffered under their colonizers. Laughable!

Butthurt muzlime spotted

nicedas:
i can naturally feel d unease inside u, it is only those who are unwise that makes judgement out of ignorance...

Her testimony in a sharia court is non admissable as she is a woman

She can never hold council or be a prosecuting lawyer in a sharia court neither can she oversee a sharia court.

The only time she can stand in a sharia court will be as an accused!

Facts

thorpido:
She should have opted to study sharia law then.

Sam sharia law that doesn't recognize her testimony or council or lordship?

The only time she can appear in a sharia court is as an accused

Get treatment for your schizophrenia

DaudaAbu:


Using them as an example doesnt mean i approve of their 'gayness'.

And the same afonjess should be reminded that in an exclusively Islamic society it is absolutely haram for her to drive a car talk more of being seen in a sharia court

DaudaAbu:


I am just using d gay pple to show when someone challenges tha status quo and ask for freedom for wat he believe in

Same gays you Muslims throw off buildings?

DaudaAbu:


You know that this her singular action will lead to all those isues To be addressed. .And know too that if it comes to using legal skills, she would get lots of SANs to argue her case pro bono

And the case will be thrown out faster than her hijabi ass was hauled away from the ceremony

The dress code for lawyers is asexual and this was done to remove any bias

She should be grateful that she is in a profession that provides a non discriminatory level field for women

She should ask herself why as a muslim lawyer she can not hold council in a sharia court, provide testimony or aspire to the rank of a sharia judge.

Remember, all are equal in the eyes of the law

DaudaAbu:


Did gay people ever think they will get their right in those countrys where they are allowed freedom? Someone stood up and demanded it

So Muslims are now like gays?

Lol

chinjo:
Why all these hullabaloo about this woman not been called to bar because of wearing an Hijab. Was she not aware of the dress code before now. Is a Yoruba Muslim now more religious in the practice of Islamic religion than the core northerners. For instance, I am aware that shoes are not allowed in the mosque. Should I now go to the mosque and insist on entering it with my shoes on? If those Hisbah people prevent me from entering the mosque is it proper for me to come to social media and be crying that my right has been infringed upon?

The idiot can't even practice as a sharia lawyer

Her religion doesn't have any professional place for her outside being a baby making machine or a suicude bomber

She should not bother herself with what she wants to believe is the Nigerian Bar Association in denying her a professional membership over her flagrant disabuse of their laid down traditions with respect to the ceremonial dress code for inductees but should concern herself to the plight of the Muslim woman within the sharia realm.

As a Muslim woman and trained lawyer, she can never aspire to be a recognized sharia legal practitioner, judge or witness. The only time a sharia court can even accommodate her presence is when she must present testimony either as an accused or in the rare case they decide to hear her in an instituted case of divorce filed by her person.

So miss hijabi lawyer should factor in the fact that the asexual dress code in our secular courts provides her a level playing field where she is foremost and only recognised as a trained lawyer. Her sex or religion are not of anybody's concern within the legal profession and this should make her understand she as a Muslim woman has the full backing of the judiciary system to carry out her professional duties without bias to her gender or religion.

Miss hijabi should advocate for a place for women in the sharia realm

AnodaIT:
The Russian built their oil industry based on abiotic process and it works for them, the American built their technology based on fossil theory and it works for them

There are overwhelming evidences supporting the two

One provides for inflation in oil price while the other doesn't.

One is exploitative while the other isnt

She should not bother herself with what she wants to believe is the Nigerian Bar Association in denying her a professional membership over her flagrant disabuse of their laid down traditions with respect to the ceremonial dress code for inductees but should concern herself to the plight of the Muslim woman within the sharia realm.

As a Muslim woman and trained lawyer, she can never aspire to be a recognized sharia legal practitioner, judge or witness. The only time a sharia court can even accommodate her presence is when she must present testimony either as an accused or in the rare case they decide to hear her in an instituted case of divorce filed by her person.

So miss hijabi lawyer should factor in the fact that the asexual dress code in our secular courts provides her a level playing field where she is foremost and only recognised as a trained lawyer. Her sex or religion are not of anybody's concern within the legal profession and this should make her understand she as a Muslim woman has the full backing of the judiciary system to carry out her professional duties without bias to her gender or religion.

Bevista:
I think she's saying that there is no law specifically proscribing the use of hijab, except that it is merely a convention. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt one really needs to challenge a convention in court.
---
BTW, the abusive comments wasn't necessary.

There is also no law mandating she becomes a lawyer as well

She should put her limited legal skills to test and challenge the long held dress code.

Note: her hijab ban is not limited to her graduation ceremony alone as if she decides to practice law, she will need to adhere to this same dress code.

There is the long held myth which the west have been pushing for nearly a century, that crude oil is a product of eons of accumulated decayed bio-mass and this theory gave rose to the finite fossil theory.

Pure hogwash!

The alternative theory referred to as"Abiotic or Abiogenic oil" has been in existence since after world war 2 and was pioneered by Russian scientists with the paid and bought western scentists ever ready to debunk this theory.

Why will the west try to discredit the abiotic oil theory? Because oil, needs to be finite to remain valuable. It costs about one dollar to explore, drill and prerefine one barrel of crude.

By pushing the finite fossil oil theory, crude prices which the west controls can be artificially inflated and this bennefits the petrol dollar.

Also that myth known as climate change was fabricated by western scientists to ensure the limited deployment of abiogenic theory into oil exploration inorder to demonize crude - an infinite energy source inorder to stall the collapse of the dollar.

In this thread, I will b doing a lot of pasta on abiotic oil theory.

Stick around

chiagozien post
=63354439:
Suicide bomber like you

U dey mind the sokoto owned slave

Go and challenge the rule in court and stop blabbing like the female goat that you are

Ugly afonjess

jpphilips:



Putin disgraced Obama in Syria is not an indicator that Russia is stronger militarily, I don't buy that.

We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our persona perceptions of facts

Bump

Mynd44 push this to FP

The russians are the only peoples on the planet to effectively put down an insurgency - first in their own backyard in Chechnya and now in Syria

So much for obama's claim that Russia is a regional power after annexing Crimea

What comes next

It was revealed in late November that the Russian forces currently stationed at the Hmeymim airbase near Latakia and the naval base in Tartus would remain there. Their presence will clear the path for Russia to fend off any threat in the Eastern Mediterranean and to thus ensure the strategic parity that guarantees long-term peace in this volatile region. While the Syrian peace process is under its way the situation in the country and around is very fragile. The key game players and war profiteers are still on the ground and they are not to leave the Syrian territory. So the primary goal is to prevent anybody from the “defeated party” to undermine the talks and to secure desperately needed reconstruction programs, renovation and stabilization of normal social, economic and political life in Syria.

The makings of victory

Russian aircraft were able to administer continuous, nonstop strikes against targets belonging to terrorist groups in Syria. From the onset of the military operation until September 2017, over 30,000 sorties were flown and about 92,000 attacks on terrorists were carried out.

Russian planes bashed terrorists with the active support of the most elite force in the Russian military, the soldiers from the Special Operations Forces, who conducted reconnaissance missions, corrected the moves of aircraft and artillery, trained Syrian soldiers and officers, conducted raids deep into enemy territory, set up countless ambushes along the routes of terrorist convoys, and neutralized the leaders of outlaw gangs. The ships and airplanes of the Syrian Express had an important role to play, supplying weapons, armored vehicles, and ammunition to the embattled country. Russian doctors were responsible for true acts of heroism, treating the civilians and servicemen who had suffered injuries in the war.

And a huge role in the resolution of the Syrian crisis was played by the Russian diplomats who set in motion the negotiations in Astana. Those made it possible to establish the de-escalation zones in Syria that are still operating effectively today.

Syrian peace talks in Astana

But of course it was the Syrian people who won the real victory – the Russian military just helped to remind them that the enemy can be defeated even if it enjoys the unconditional support of the West.