johnydon22:


provide a picture of that spot that is unedited

uncleiykeman:


Buhari is one of the people that formed bokoharam to destabilize jonathan's government. Buhari is a terrorist.

uncleiykeman:


What should you be grateful for? Having a fulani terrorist as president? A mass murderer that not only kills Christians but also killed hundreds of shiite Muslims in kaduna. What should you be grateful for?

yanshDoctor:
i saw some Hausa Fulani Muslim women with juhabs, very weird painted tattoo on their hands and feet's. i think that's what caught my attention. i saw the youngest and prettiest of them wearing wedding ring. was like when did Muslim start using wedding rings.

uncleiykeman:
Buhari is the anti Christ, he has killed so many Christians in the southeast.

enilove:



You know what you are saying, no doubts about that.
The Islamic religion is of satan. Islam is antichrist.
It denied the death of Jesus , what other facts do we need.

This is an evidence among thousands to show we dont worship the same God.
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 579:

Narrated Abu Dharr:

The Prophet said, Gabriel came to me and gave me the glad tidings that anyone who died without worshipping anything besides Allah, would enter Paradise. I asked (Gabriel), 'Even if he committed theft, and even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse?' He said, '(Yes), even if he committed theft, and even if he Committed illegal sexual intercourse."


But the God our Lord Jesus says in:

James 2:10-11 KJV
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point , he is guilty of all. [11] For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

There is no way a Holy God will approve theft and illegal sexual intercourse .

They can fool the blinds but not christians who know the God they serve.

alBHAGDADI:


Can you now see that your religion is barbaric?

alBHAGDADI:


Can you now see that your religion is barbaric?

DipoAy:
Your dog is amazing to me . it is also quite tall. Guess all the feeding paid off in the end

enilove:
The truth is bitter. That is their only defence .

They are afraid because they know there are so many shameful things about Islam.

They fail to realize that there is no end to sufferings in hell.

Today in modern warfare explosions, tanks, missiles etc are used. The mujahideen and Muslim countries use these weapons against the enemies of Allah. But the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire.' Is using these weapons haram?


Firstly:

If the Muslims gain power over their enemy and defeat them, it is not permissible to burn them with fire, and there is no difference of scholarly opinion concerning this matter, because of the proven report from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which he said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent us on a campaign and said: “If you find So and so, and So and so, then burn them with fire.” Then the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, when we wanted to set out: “I had instructed you to burn So and so, and So and so. But no one punishes with fire except Allah, so if you find them, then execute them.” Narrated by al-Bukhari (3016).

This applies so long as burning does not come under the heading of requiting and punishing like with like.

But in the event of combat when the enemy is holed up in fortifications and the like, then the Muslims may raid them and attack them with fire, and burn their fortifications around them, and do anything that may undermine their enemy and break their spirit. This was done by the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them), the Tabi‘een and those who came after them.

That is not included in the prohibition on punishing with fire, because the hadith was speaking about people who were not holed up in fortifications. But if they are holed up in fortifications, then there is nothing wrong with sending fire against them, so as to bring about their defeat and surrender, whether by means of fire or any other means.

Ibn Hajar said, commenting on a chapter title included by al-Bukhari, Do not punish with the punishment of Allah:

This applies when burning is not needed as a means to overcome the disbelievers in a war situation.

End quote from Fath al-Bari (6/149).

It was narrated that Salamah ibn al-Akwa‘ said: We travelled by sea at the time of Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and we met the enemy in battle and launched burning material at them.

Thus we learn that there is nothing wrong with any of that so long as they are holed up in fortifications. It is only forbidden to burn with fire after taking prisoners, according to what was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent out a group on a campaign and said to them: “If you capture So and so, then burn him with fire.” (That person) had spooked the camel of Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her), the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), by poking it, which caused her to fall and suffer a miscarriage. Then he said: “If you capture him, then execute him and do not burn him, for only Allah, may He be exalted, punishes with fire.

When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent Mu‘adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) to Yemen, he said to him: “Look for So and so, and if Allah enables you to capture him, burn him with fire.” But when he turned to leave, he called him back and said: “I said that to you when I was angry. But no one has the right to punish anyone with the punishment of Allah, may He be exalted (i.e., fire). Rather if Allah enables you to capture him, then execute him.” Thus we know that it was forbidden to burn the mushrikeen after capturing them. But if the enemy is holed up in fortifications, there is nothing wrong with that.
Ibn Qudamah said in al-Mughni:

As for the enemy, if one is able to gain power over him, it is not permissible to burn him with fire, and there is no scholarly difference concerning that as far as we know.

As for attacking them with fire before capturing them, if it is possible to capture them without resorting to that, it is not permissible to attack them with fire, because they come under the same heading as those who are defeated and captured. But if it is not possible to defeat them by any other means, then it is permissible, according to most of the scholars…

‘Abdullah ibn Qays said: The Muslims are still following this view.

Ash-Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Umm (4/258):

If the enemy is holed up in a mountain, fortress, ditch, or the like, then there is nothing wrong with attacking them with mangonels, catapults and fire...

If someone were to ask: How can it be permissible to launch an attack with mangonels and fire against a group of mushrikeen among whom are women and children, whom we are forbidden to kill?

The answer is: We allow that in the circumstances we described. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) launched a raid against Banu al-Mustaliq when they were off their guard, and ordered the fighters to attack them at night with fire, and it was known that among them were children and women. That was because that was the land of shirk and was not under protection; rather what is prohibited is to deliberately target and kill women and children. End quote.

It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kuwaitiyyah (12/244):

It is prescribed to attack the enemy with fire, even if that will result in making them suffer its burning. This applies when it is not possible to defeat them without burning, because the Sahabah and Tabi‘een did that during their campaigns. As for punishing them with fire after having defeated them, that is not permissible, because of the report narrated by Hamzah al-Aslami (may Allah be pleased with him), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) appointed him in charge of a campaign and said to him: “If you find So and so, then burn him with fire.” I [Hamzah al-Aslami] turned to leave, then he called me, so I went back to him and he said: “If you find So and so, then execute him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of fire.” End quote.

This has to do the basic principle concerning this matter, when attacking with fire is not the main method of war. But in the modern era, the Muslims are required to fight their enemies in the same manner as they fight them, or even with something better than that if they are able to do so. And they must develop these weapons and surpass their enemies in doing so, for this comes under the heading of necessary strength that the Muslims are commanded to prepare in order to confront their enemies. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy”

[al-Anfal 8:60].

Ash-Shaykh as-Sa‘di said:

This includes all kinds of skills that are required to produce various kinds of weapons and equipment such as artillery, automatic weapons, rifles, warplanes, land vehicles, ships, forts and strongholds, trenches and defensive equipment, as well as wisdom and diplomacy, by means of which the Muslims may become advanced in these fields and ward off the evil of their enemies.

End quote from his Tafseer (p. 324).

Secondly:

Attacking the enemy with modern weapons is of various types:

Some of these weapons cause burning. They come under the ruling mentioned above, that is discussed in detail. They are more akin to mangonels and other weapons that involve burning, that are discussed above, so it is permissible to use them in the case of fighting the enemy or when the enemy is holed up in fortifications and the like.

Ss-San‘ani said: It is permissible to kill combatant disbelievers if they are holed up in fortifications, using mangonels and, by analogy, by using other weapons such as artillery and the like.

End quote from Subul as-Salam (2/478).

Some of the weapons do not cause burning, such as rifles and revolvers. Even though the bullets in them are launched by the power of fire, killing results from the penetration of bullets which pass through the body. So there is no problem with them using such weapons in their fight, and the Muslims have been using such weapons for a long time without any objections.

And Allah knows best.

OtemSapien:
And how does that change the cost of garri in the market? Is the definition of clown someone who owns or doesn't own a business? Even clowning is a business on its own, ask Mr Bean and Baba Suwe

Originakalokalo:


Seen, your mods just locked my Thread on

" I am currently studying the Quran...."

There was no insult in the thread.

It.was started by me.

I am not a Muslim

Why lock it?

proudlyYoruba:
T

alBHAGDADI:
Okay

Shout YAHWEH is GREAT in your mosque this Friday.

If they don't slaughter you, then it means we worship the same God.

alBHAGDADI:
Okay

Shout YAHWEH is GREAT in your mosque this Friday.

If they don't slaughter you, then it means we worship the same God.

alBHAGDADI:


If allah is the Arabic equivalent of God's name in Hebrew, YAHWEH, then prove it by shouting YAHWEH AKBAR in your mosque this Friday.

If your head doesn't fall off, then you are correct.