₦airaland Forum

Self righteousness & Hypocrisy. Holier than thou! A Muslim whose own traditions relay that the messenger consummated his marriage with a 9 years old kid, whom he had married at 6 years of age. Pedophilia?! Such Muslim have no right to condemn to death two gays in private, consensual romantic or marital affair.

Qur'an doesn't necessarily condemn effeminate men, emasculate women or homosexuals. Public and uninhibited expression of self-indulgent lust between males is what the people of Lot were guilty of. Even then, it is God that punished the people. Not Lot, not the believers. We leave the punishment to God.

Unfortunately, Muslims reject the Qur'an for hearsay. So, in Iraq, though no full implementation of sharia and homosexuality is not criminalized; in bid to 'rid their society of evil', fanatic Muslims take upon the task of killing homosexuals outside the judicial system.

Continue Below

ForeWord - 14 years old Muhammad al Motteri murdered in Iraq for looking effeminate and gay.

Iraqi boy of 14, killed for looking gay

The gruesome murder of the 14 years old boy in Iraq few days ago have sparked condemnation worldwide. No doubt, traditional Muslim scholars would condemn this as usual but unless the ideology and mentality behind such hate and violence is admitted and condemned, more will be hunted and killed on grounds of homosexuality.

"Ahh" the apologists will say, "Vigilante justice not acceptable in Islam". Cut the crap! Vigilante justice or court justice, once homosexuality is proven, the penalty is death in Sunnite or Shiite religion. That is bad enough.

Continue Below

Objectives

- To reaffirm the Universal Human Rights, Freedom and Equity as Fundamental principles of the Qur'an.
- To reaffirm orthodox sharia partly violates principles of Human rights, Freedom and Equity.

Apparently, anyone upholding religious decrees from other than God is associating partner with God. The partner here being the source of decrees - saints, jurists, messengers; Muhammad, Jesus, Moses.

Then aside from God, the Arabs believed in other beings, as authority for religious decrees, confirmed here;

42:21 Or do they have partners who decree for them a sharia(laws) which has not been authorized by God? And if it were not for the word already given, they would have been judged immediately. Indeed, the transgressors will have a painful retribution.

Here, God condemned the Arabs for holding religious decrees emanating from other beings. God denounces this as associating partners with Him.

Continue Below

Obedience - To God Alone

Obedience to God, goes without saying. But under monotheism, can any other being be obeyed in the religion? We can learn from history:

Before Muhammad, Arabs believe in 'Allah' - God. The Qur'anic evidence include;

29:63 And if you ask them: "Who sends down water from the sky, thus reviving the land after its death?" They will say: "God." Say: "Praise be to God." But most of them do not comprehend.

29:65 When they ride on a ship, they call on God, devoting the system to Him. But as soon as He saves them to the shore, they set up partners.

Continue Below

Empiree:
You have made wrong allegation against me. Kindly quote me where i said @highlited please?.



Far as i know, this is what i said

I know that's what you said. But what you said is not reality. In Iran or Saudi, hijab and forced business dismissal for salat is not limited to Muslims, it is enforced on everyone(with very little exception for foreign non-Muslim rulers on visit).
Like the Chess tournament sometimes ago in Iran where Female chess player from India refused to participate because Iranian authorities insist on headcoverings for all women. Search on Google.

Now, you must pardon my venting, as it seem to have sunk you into trolling, taunting and gloating as you do with Christians and atheists in Religion section.

But my venting post was suppose to be my final response to you, so I unleashed my mind without holding anything back, for that last post. I do not desire to reply you anytime soon as you've proved now to be an avid opponent of human rights and freedom.

I wish you the best and hope that you sincerely, see the errors of your ways.

And please, grow up. Taunting is for kids.

Peace.

Empiree:
Someone Is Not Happy That White People Are Coming To Islam

Gloating. Thank God for exposing yourself.

Empiree: ** stop telling muslims not to pray at appointed times without valid reason(s) established in figh.

I never said Muslims shouldn't pray at the appointed time. I said no one should force Muslims to pray.

** stop telling muslims that there are other forms (patterns) of salat contrary to the one legislated for over 1400 years.

In our talk here so far, in this thread, I never said this.

** stop telling muslims that it is 3 daily prayers instead of 5.

I never said this in our discussion in the last 2 or 3 days. Are you deliberately derailing the topic? I said if a Muslim conclude salat is thrice daily, his conclusion should be respected. 5 salat should not be enforced on him.

These are innovations. Islam teaches us to train our children to offer salat at age of 7 and to hold them accountable at age of 10. But you have views that is 100% contrary to establishment. Therefore, keep your fake "manhaj" to yourself. If Saudi and Iran chose to enforce Muwatta (whatever it is), is only about muslims nor about people of other faiths.

All irrelevant. Evident of your poor knowledge on forced Islam in those countries, closure of business in time of salat and enforced hair covering applies to non-Muslims.

Respect people's preference and choices, don't bully everyone into compliance with your own preference and choices. Be Humble.

If you resort to adhomein whenever a disagreement arises, then don't cry foul when I resort to adhomein as well. You're very good in diverting the subject when conered. And accusing me fighting against your religion. The same tactics employed by the Muslims who killed Farag Foda, Salman Taseer, Muhammad Taha, Rashad Khalifa and many other peacemakers among Muslims.

And then you brag about your converts, as if converts are indication your religion is the truth. The very converts whom originally you demonize as "filthy kuffars" before their conversion. The converts, many of whom do not know the ugly face of your religion as I do.

Empiree: And I don't know why you have to force me on those two groups. This shows you are upset. And I have told you before those are agents of the free world that you think are Angels. I showed you John McCain posed with them in 2014

You do understand that Israel created Hamas right? The so called defenders of Palestinians. Covert western agents do pull strings here and there to support terrorists groups, of course.

But who lead Muslims from all over the world to the terrorist camps? Why did over 6 thousand British Muslim men and women go upon ISIS? Was there a secret westerner enticing them?

I don't take half-truth. With or without McCain, terrorist groups would exist in Muslim world, even if to a lesser extent. Muslim terrorism have existed since the 7th century, either as fanatic Muslims killing Muslims or killing non-Muslims.

That said, I stand by everything I've said in my earlier post. You believe in forcing your interpretation of Islam on others. You do not respect individual liberty, civil or human rights. This is not too different from ISIS combatants.

Empiree:
You are on a mission. For this, I won't take you serious. The comparison you made was not even logical.

You have no proof as usual. If Wahhabist and Khomeinists can enforce policies as they see fit to protect their ideology, Christians, secularists and democrats should be able to enforce policies as they see fit to preserve their ideology. "It is their land."

"Do onto others what as you want to be done to you". Learn humility and respect.

You are just trying hard to take Islam away from people. But guess what?. It won't work. Many westerners are coming to Islam. They are gonna be disappointed if they see you speak like this. It is shameful of you.

It is a pathetic that you fear your religion will easily be wiped out if people are allowed to go on with their affairs during salat time. It is proof of the weakness of your beliefs. You lack faith in the stability of your own religion that you don't even believe everything it states Denying the death penalty for apostasy, stoning of adulterers and slavery that are well documented in your books.

Many of those western converts and Muslims born in Islam in the Muslim world and the west utterly reject the enforcement of Islam as seen in Muslim countries. They'll be disappointed in Muslims like you who is an Islamist, who can't deal with pluralism.

Lastly, you are on a mission with the Muslim Brotherhood. That's why you throw in unconfirmed & misleading news and propagandas, falsely slandering an ex President, a dead man, a Muslim. You share the same heinous beliefs with the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram, only that you object to their bomblasts and killings.

So long, Empiree.

Empiree:
what muslims think is irrelevant. This is Saudi Arabia. If their law says "in the time of salat when adhan is called, all shops must close and everyone goes to pray, or whoever is unable for medical reason prays in his shop etc. If you have no valid reason to join the prayer and you continue conducting your business, Mutawwa must challenge you"

Then, this is the law of the land and it is none of anyone's business. But for you to ask for opinion of muslims is rather irrelevant bcus in this day and age there are many who just wanna combine all their salat at night. So it won't be surprised to disagree with my opinion. This is God's religion not the people.

It is people's business. It's like saying that it is no one's business if a western country's rulers decide to ban mosques or ban Muslim immigrants or force everyone not to work on Sundays.

That said, there are plenty of Muslims who oppose Saudi and Iran's policy of enforcing Islam. For you to say their opinions is irrelevant is highly bias.

Empiree:
okay, this one I have told you it is their country and this is heartland of Islam. Therefore, when it is time for salat, from what I heard, all or most stores are closed for the moment. Therefore, if it is law of the land to enforce this law, so be it.

However, no one can tell if someone prays or not on average day. So I wont support beating up people on the streets by asking them "have you prayed?". But in time of salat and every shop is closed and you keep yours open or don't go to pray, they have the right to challenge you.

This is your position of the state policy, my question is do you think other Muslims share this position? How many percent do you think will agree that such a policy is justice?

Empiree:
well, I don't know what's your definition of forcing in this context. There is nothing to force on anyone because muslim generally pray the same way except you. We can't tell if someone believes differently unless and until he leads salat in non-traditional way as legislated. Or he preaches "3 daily salat" according to his understanding. Then muslims are obligated to take his microphone off or shut the mic and put a duck tape on his lips and. FORCE him to take elementary studies of Islam all over again

You still don't understand. Let's put it with the Saudi example. Do you think most Muslims agree with Mutawwa forcing people out for salat?

Empiree:
yes, because there is no difference of opinion. The way we pray was legislated

Not that. I mean do you think most Muslims agree on forcing one interpretation on those that hold alternate interpretation?

Empiree:
what I understand is with her fellow women. Even if a young boy is present and he knows how to lead salat he should instead of woman.

OK. I get you.

. nonesense.

Have you ever worked as security agent or a carrier where your boss gives you SEALED envelop to deliver to another company?. You have absolutely no right to open the envelope. If you do, you are going to jail.

So patterns of praying salat and number of salat is completed and SEALED. To do contrary to that is tantamount to heretic and should be excommunicated

OK. I won't dispute you. But do you think most traditionalists will agree with you on that?

Empiree: I really shake my head for you man. Quote the hadith please. That's interesting allegation

I don't have the Hadith at my disposal at the moment. But do you disagree that a woman can be Imam for men in salat?

There is no room for any muslim to come up with different number or salat. This is
innovation that you are promoting

That's not the point. The point is every Muslim's belief or interpretation should be respected. Don't force your own interpretation on others.

BeansAndBread:
That's not true, Sheikh Uthman Dan Fodio was partially Sufi of Qadriyyah Tariqah

Imam Shamil of Degastan that fought against the Russians was Sufi.

AbdulKadeer Al Jazaari that fought the French and Druze was Sufi.

Even during the US invasion of Iraaq, there was a Sufi militant group that represented the Naqshbandi Tariqah and they were known to have cooperated with ISIS sometimes.

So Sufis fight, so don't be surprised

Thanks. I guess I overstated. I have met folks that turned to Sufism, they said it is more tolerant version that respect individual choice.
I've looked into it proper now, and couple with what Empyree has said, I admit my impression was wrong.

Empiree:
Humm, I think you may have misunderstood. When i said hair, i was actually referring to covering of head. When you cover your head, hair is covered by default. Let's get this clear. It's like being told that that someone covered their eyes, but asking did they cover their corneas as well... If the head is not visible, then how can the hair be visible...? So i am taking about head covering. It was simply easy for me to say hair.

Really? Hope you understand that face is part of head? This is why some Muslims regard niqab as fard.

Now to Umm Salama, this is what i found:


Hadith 1:


It was narrated that Umm Salamah said: When the words ‘draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies’ were revealed, the women of the Ansaar went out as if there were crows on their heads because of the way they covered themselves.

(Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4101; classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh Abu Dawood.)





Hadith 2:


It was narrated that Aa’ishah said: The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam. When they came near us we would lower our jilbabs from our heads over our faces, and when they had passed by we would uncover our faces. (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1562.)




Hadith 3:


When Allah revealed the words (interpretation of the meaning) –
“…and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)…” [al-Noor24:31] – they tore the edges of their aprons and covered their heads with them.’

(narrated by Abu Dawood, 4102, from the hadeeth of Ibn Wahb).

None of these Hadith covers Umm Salma on women clothing for salat.

The same natural law that caused businesses, schools, and public restrooms to have Male and Female restrooms apart, by this same logical reason, Allah put women behind on the lip of the prophet(saw). I need not to quote text. Common sense is enough. The prophet even went to say, women should stay a little longer in sujud because some men may not have enough gown that cover their behind. But if women are in front and men behind, i am sure many men would be lust.

Restrooms are places women may UnCloth, it is only reasonable to separate genders.

As for what God imply through the lips of the Prophet, you can find them in a Book with 114 chapters. There is evidence even within Hadith that instructions from Hadith were not divinely inspired. But that's for another day.

To minmize getting distracted in salat by a woman standing in front of you, lower your gaze. How about that? Shut your eyes while you pray or fix your eyes on a spot on the floor.

There seem to be Hadith where the Prophet permitted a woman to lead a mixed congregation, if my memory serves me right. But I'm not sure of the source.

Empiree:
Yes, i don't care what you think. My grandfather did the same when i was young. Not only to his family but entire hood. He knocked on doors early in the morning for fajr. I still remember like yesterday. And he taught many islam including those rich people you see on tv today, like Chief Bayo Kuku and many dignitaries. If he didnt do this to us, we would be something else today.Guess what now?. He died in 2015 at 105 and every single person he taught appreciates his effort. So dont blame Mutawa. Dont look at this from Western perspective. You will be so wrong. This is major tenet not hijab, and quran says "enter into the islam wholeheartedly" Q2:208

Hmm... So you really think what the Mutawwa do is like what your grandpa did? I'm not sure how many Muslims agree with you on this. I think even people like tbobo1234 or Elbaqir will disagree. And if I'm wrong, then ...... I don't know.

So, if a Saudi Muslim believes in only 3 salat, Fajr, Dhuhr, Isha'i, should he be pestered by Mutawwa for Asr salat? What if a Muslim prefers to postpone his salat instead of going for it at the adhaan, you still think he should be bugged by Mutawwa?

As for me, I refuse to narrow the scope of application for 'No compulsion in religion', I believe no doctrine is enforceable on Muslim just as Islam is not enforceable on non-Muslims.

In those countries that 'Islamic rules'(Iran & Saudi Arabia) are enforced, closet atheism or apostasy is still on the rise. Unfortunately, I have no citation for reference at my disposal at the moment.

Empiree:
Good. I am glad you mentioned "spiritual" which means classical meaning of the text was correct. Quran has exoteric and esoteric meanings. Those scholars understood this.

Not all the verses have multi-meanings. Especially, not the verses with instructions like modest dressing. The problem is your mindset, you think like the innovators of hair covering.

There is nothing spiritual in covering the hair. But a person who have been conditioned to believe so, will believe so.

Same goes with traditions like circumcision(male & females) and keeping lengthy beards. All these were incorporated in Islam due to cultural taboos or influences from even other Abrahamic or even pagan religions.

Apart from that, a simple "we hear and we obey" is enough for women to cover their hair. And there is a reason God put women in the back in salat. Maybe you will argue this too?. All these things combined are meant to avoid trouble.

Obey what? Do you think every Muslim woman that does not wear haircovering is ignorant, lazy or just rebellious? You'll be surprised to find women even among Sunnites who after researching texts and opinions have resolved haircovering is not essential. I'm speaking of practicing Muslim women. They can independently wipe the ground with you over the validity of hair covering.

PS: God put women back in salat? May be the hadith or Fiqh put them behind. But nowhere does God/Qur'an put women in the back.

Empiree:
Thats why i won't argue with you on this. One thing is clear, your view and your likes were recent not classical one. Women covered throughout islamic history until we have this idea of feminism and freedom

You have done very little to investigate hair covering aside what the scholars repeat. Also, you continue to undermine Quran each time you insist in teachings absent in it.

According to your own Hadith Umm Salma was asked what clothes a woman required for salat. There was no mention of hair covering in her response.
See Muwatta Malik: Book of Prayer in Congregation: Hadith #38

If you truly want to uncover the spurious origins of hair covering in traditional Islam, go find out from the Imams of fiqh if hair constitute awra of slave woman.

which are hypocritical in nature. Examples,

Women say "what men can do women can do better"

Now, when it comes to job and pay, the statement above works fine for them. But when it comes to paying bills, they say 'you are men, you should pay it'.

When it comes to dating, men pay everything. When it comes to entering car, "women first". When it comes to proposing marriage, men kneel. If you dont, they say you are very disrespectful. But when it comes to religion, "we have freedom". All these nonsense make me sick to my stomach

Questioning hair covering did not originate with feminism.

I understand why you see exposing women hair a kind of taboo even in 2018. When I was a Sunnite, my mindset was the same.

Empiree: I have told you that they reduced hijab to "covering my beauty", is not essentially the case. It has spiritual meaning which was the real case when i was growing up. Hair is not about lust. It is more than that. I think you should research this. Some understand what i am talking about. Why do you think christians, when they have problems and go to their pastors with head covered?.

You have no proof, unfortunately. The tone of Qur'an 24:31 actually deals with decency. Decency is spiritual and is attainable even without covering the hair.

Empiree:
Okay, i think your issue is FORCE. I get it. Remember obligatory practices like Salat, Siyam, zakat, Haj are forced on us by Creator Himself. We have no choice when we embrace islam but claim we have freedom not to pray. Salat etc are injunctions. There are also other injunctions muslims abide by but depends on level of Iman. They simply have different levels of enforcement. Like enforcement of obligatory practices are higher compared to enforcement of hijab.

So, do you think it is justified for Mutawa of Saudi to chase people out of their shops and offices for salat?

I have to admit that i didnt fully watch the clip before i posted it. But i still disagree with the president bcus, even if he disagree with MS's proposal, it should never happen in such platform where it appears mockery of God's injunction. He didnt reject their proposal from scholarly perspective. Rather he was laughing. That was the reason i see no Ikhlas in his rejection of proposal. If he wanted to reject their proposal, it should have been done respectively. He didnt do that in the video. He and his audience were just laughing, Therefore, propaganda was justified in my opinion.

Too bad you still support the propaganda. He was laughing because he found it ridiculous that a man who cannot force his own daughter to wear headcover wants the entire population of Egyptian women be forced to wear head cover. Nothing mocking of hair covering in that. The problem is your mindset.

Empiree:
Whats your position on covering hair for women in salat. Obligatory or not?. This will give me clue where you stand.

If you don't know the answer to this, then you don't know me well. Is there directive to conceal the hair in salat in Quran?

Empiree:
Even in salat?. Even craziest feminist Muslims in America like Amina Wadud and the other one in canada who leads salat cover up around the clock despite feminity agenda.

The Canadian was Raheel Raza. On the day she led salat, she covered her hair. But this is out of formality not modesty or Islam. Just as a lot of male Imams cover their hair in salat. Raheel Raza does not cover around the clock. And she is Sunnite. There's probably case of female Imam in leading salat without covering her hair. We just haven't heard.

Also keep in mind there are Muslim women who do not see hair covering as compulsory, but they choose to wear 'hijab' for non-religious reasons like fashion, culture, family or societal pressure. Some even cover their hair because it saves them the cost and time of grooming it when going out in public.

Talking about enforcing hijab by authority, is just one of these basic public moral laws. Hijab should be encouraged. Not the way you are viewing. You are trying to relax it 100% as you already pointed out up there. Back in the days, the Sufis you mentioned didn't even allowed women to sit near them uncovered when they make Dua or offer salat because the believe is that angels don't patronize the region where women's hair is uncovered. This has long been Muslim tradition. But today, they reduced Hijab to "covering our beauty" which is not essentialy the case. So you can see importance of covering hair. This is not about militant view. Majority of the Sufi still command wearing hijab. So what's your point. And at no point did I tell you I'm a Sufi. This name calling are meant to promote sectarianism. I don't fall for that.

Re-read my post again. I did a lot of modifying, so a lot you've written here is not really necessary. Plus, I haven't stated that Sufi relaxed hijab, I stated Sufis generally do not believe in enforcing Islamic rules like hijab.

I like it or not, I like the way Muslim majority countries, Iran and Saudi enforced it. There should be outward signs and outward appearance of muslims in majority muslim countries. Muslim country shouldn't look like Las Vegas. Just like Vatican, if you go there, you see women and men in their religious regalia all the time. Why should you have problems with Muslim?. What I don't support is enforcement of face veil.

Which problem do I have with Muslims? Is it criticizing the Saudi and Iranian government for enforcing hijab?

efforts must be made. Period. You on the other hand are trying to relax it and make it sound like it is not important.

Yea, make the effort. But that's different from forcing them to wear it. It is not important, at least from my understanding and there are at least minorities, including scholars that share my position.

The best way to make it easy for them is by making it traditional and cultural practice from childhood. Allah rewards them for covering. I have sisters too who don't cover but only cover at the time of salat. I also have sisters who cover all the time outside.

Some of them will grow up to question it. And some of these will eventually renounce it after doing their homework.

Sorry sir. Hijab is part of Islam. I don't understand what freedom you are talking about. So people can also say they have freedom not to pray obligatory salat too and still remain muslim?. Let me ask you this, why are you concern about hijab when in fact, there are non-Muslims trying to be like muslims?. We should encourage people not nonsense you are saying.

Encourage people with false teachings? Not on my watch.

Did you watch American rapper who appeared on Dr. Phill show some 6 years ago all covered up?. She went from unclothedness to being covered. What Islamic legacy do you as a "muslim" teach folks like her?.

You keep equating unclothedness to exposing hair. This is a very poor premise. Our bone of contention is covering the hair, not bosom, thighs or backside.

Importance of hijab must be taught. And if after understanding it, but some women still decide "oh well, I still don't wanna wear hijab", then, for as long as they don't go around telling fellow women that they have freedom not to wear it, I'm cool with that. Head covering is fitra for women throughout history, muslim or not.

There is no importance in hair covering, if that's what you mean by hijab. Modest dressing that curbs lust is what Qur'an speaks of. There is nothing in hair that incites lust.

Forced Islam is NOT Islam

The facebook url posted earlier by Empiree, under the title, "Egyptian President Mocks Hijab in 1958", pertains to Gamal Abdel Naseer relating account of his discourse with the Muslim Brotherhood(MB) on compulsory hair covering. Overlook Empyree's title, and get a translated video from YouTube on Naseer speaking on the matter with his audience.

The moment a Muslim is forced to abide by Islamic injunctions, it is no longer Islam. Hence, the saying, "Actions are judged by intention". True submission(Islam) exist only when the people willing comply out of conviction and choice.

I've debunked the commandment of hair covering for women long ago. Yet, even if such commandment exists, there is no justification for enforcing it by the authorities. Just as there is no justification for state enforcement of salat. Very simple analogy.

Sure, Naseer was no fine secular leader. But he was right in dismissing and undermining the MB's request for enforcement of hair covering Egypt as in Iran or Saudi Arabia today. And for this reason, the MB till date continue to slander him with false accusation of mocking hijab.

Empiree:
Anyways, Hijab is fard when making salat and this is not about "covering my beauty" as many think. This seems to be trending notion amongst women. And there is nothing to suggest that it's not fard outside of salat either.

This is not the bone of contention. Is it OK for authorities to enforce hair covering on women? Is it mockery of hair covering to dismiss it's enforcement on women?

And what's Sufi gotta do with this?.

It got to do with your militant views on Islam, like authorities enforcing headcovering. Sufis are usually less militant in their approach to sharia than hardline Sunnites. But with you, I've learnt there are exception and discovering your ties with Muslim Brotherhood sums it.

Now if a woman doesn't wear it, is due to her understanding or idea of how she perceives it. So I don't recommend any individual forcing it on her. Hijab is not about just "covering beauty". It is more than that for their own good and those around them. If they pray salat without head cover they are just doing exercise. Truth must be told.

Changing your words? You originally said you support the government enforcing it. And you falsely accused an ex-president of ridiculing it. That is the problem.

I am not here to curry flavor your opinion. There is linguistic and sharia definition of hijab. So we are talking about sharia definition here. It has to be beautifully explained to women before enforcement and only authority should do that if they want to. It is not essentially a Law but a Command. And forcement thing has to be gradual process.

Beautifully explained? You might be living under a rock. There is no guarantee that such an effort will convince every Muslim woman on headcovering. Ask the Ayatollahs and Muftis.

Doesn't the Bible command hijab?

We're talking about freedom of every Muslim women to decide whether to wear or not wear it. Not whether it is divine command or not.

Empiree:
Authority does have the right to enforce it if they have to. Quran orders for it so muslim authority has enforcement responsibility to certain extent but not without explaining its importance. But I don't support imposition on non muslim citizens. It has nothing to do with iran and Saudi.

I expected you to have corrected your original post. You posted a faulty headline, a slanderous one, but you don't care. Since, all you're after is nurturing the victimhood mentality among Muslims by blowing things out of proportion.

And for you to imply the authorities have a right to enforce headcovering on Muslim women, including those women that have resolved it is not essential in Islam, just show how deeply Islamist you are.

See? The first time I found you were of Sufi order; I wondered, why a Sufi from Yoruba land would harbor such militant views as Salafist Sunnites and Khomeinist Shiites. It was not until I realized your sympathies and links to Islamist legacy groups like CAIR, ISNA of the Muslim Brotherhood, that I found my answer.

Of course, you're free to serve those groups to further their Islamist agenda. But be honest in informing the Muslim masses. Don't exploit their ignorance and sympathies for Islam.

Empiree:
There is another similar Hadith and there are other ahadith in the contrary. Therefore, the best position in my view is that this hadith is talking about those "companions" at the time of the prophet who later mysteriously so, renounced Islam AFTER the prophet (saw). Or those who waged war on tenets of Islam like Musaylima.

I'm aware there are Hadith in the contrary, but I've convienently cherry-picked this Hadith because it confirms my position on this subject; just as you convienently cherry-pick Hadith that confirms your positions on subjects.

Plus, your interpretation of this Hadith is not straight forward. The messenger's words generalized every companion who lived after his death. It didn't exempt Abu Bakr or Ali or Aisha.

Therefore, we don't call those "companions" of the prophet (saw). They were "companions" only during his time. Perhaps they were not even believers that time too. No one could determine iman. Iman resides in the heart.

Same argument as Abdelkabir. Your fault here is that you do not have an official list of the companions during and after Muhammad's days. So how do you isolate the grains from the chaff?

You also fail to see that some companions may not have not renounced Islam but invariably fell astray in their practising.

Give it up, man. There is no guarantee that any of the companions, remained accurate in Islam till death. The knowledge of their fate is with God alone. It will be careless or complacent to emulate these companions, denying there exist even a slight chance that the companions fell astray, at least in certain aspects.