Home Blog Page 145

At-Tauhid reading continued

1

Click here for previous session

 

 

Whoever asks with the Name of Allah,
is not to be rejected

Ibn Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) narrated that Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: “If anyone makes a request in Allah’s Name, give it to him; if anyone seeks refuge by Allah’s Name, give him refuge; if anyone gives you an invitation, accept it; and if anyone does you a kindness, recompense him; but if you have not the means to do so, pray for him until you feel that you have compensated him.” [Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i mentioned this Hadith and graded it Sahih (sound)]

 

Important issues of the Chapter

1) Grant protection to those who seek protection with the Name of Allah.

2) Give if one asks with the Name of Allah.

3) Acceptance of the invitation.

4) Return kindness that has been done to you.

5) If one has no means to repay kindness then supplication for him is a compensation.

6) His (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) statement: “Until you feel that you have compensated him.”

 

 

…..continue reading…..

Is Family Planning Permissible in Islam?

0

 

 

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.

Peace and blessings of Allah be upon our beloved prophet Muhammad, his household, companions and his Ummah to the day of reckoning.

 

All praises be to Allah our creator, sustainer and provider for given me such an expensive opportunity to write about the issue of family planning on Islamic perspective.

Alhamdulillah, before I proceed to quotes what Islamic scholars said according to their knowledge of the Deen, let me give you the definition of family planning according to English dictionary.

“The practice of controlling the number of children one has and the intervals between their births, particularly by means of contraception or voluntary sterilization.

 

And there are fundamentally two methods of Contraception or family planning.

(1) Permanent methods

(2) Temporary methods

(1) Permanent Methods : Permanent methods include,

Vasectomy in males and Tubecotomy in females. All the scholars unanimously AGREE that permanent methods of family planning are COMPLETELY HARAAM (prohibited) since they involve changing human physiology.

 

Says Allah in the Qur’an: “So set you your face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah’s handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made humankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.” (Al-Qur’an 30:30)

 

The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: “Marry the one who is loving and fertile, for I will be proud of your great numbers before the nations [i.e., on the Day of Resurrection].”

(Abu Dawood Hadith no. 2050, Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 1805)

 

(2) Temporary Methods:

Following are various different temporary methods.

  1. a) M.T.P. (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) or Abortion: All scholars unanimously agree that M.T.P. or abortion is HARAAM (prohibited.)

 

Allah says in the Glorious Qur’an “…kill not your children on a plea of want; We provide

Sustenance for you and for them;” (Al-Qur’an 6:151)

“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (Al-Qur’an 17:31)

 

However, scholars unanimously agree that any permanent method of family planning, or even abortion, can be done if the life of the mother is in danger. For e.g. if the woman is suffering from certain diseases like heart disease or has under gone multiple caesarean operations and in her case the continuation of pregnancy or another pregnancy may be detrimental to her life, then the woman can be aborted or a permanent method of family planning can be adopted to save the life of the woman.

 

  1. b) Taking birth control pills:

Almost all the scholars including Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Council of the Senior Scholars [of Saudi Arabia] agree that it is not allowed to take birth control pills (Fataawa al-Marah) because of its side effects and changes in the normal physiology.

  1. c) Copper-T: A very common temporary method of family planning or contraception is Copper-T.

Though it is known as ‘contraception’ but technically it is contra-implantation . The sperm fertilizes the ovum but the zygote formed is destroyed by the Copper-T and is prevented from being implanted on the uterine wall (mother’s womb). Thus it is a very early abortion, which is prohibited in Islam.

 

  1. d) Coitus Interruptus (‘Azl):

Coitus Interruptus is permissible as long as it is performed with mutual consent of both the husband and wife since both of them have equal right to have children.

This is based on the Hadith of Jabir (RA) who said: “We used to practice (‘Azl) coitus interruptus during the days when the Qur’an was being revealed”. Jabir added: “We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih Bukhari vol. 7, Hadith no. 136)

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

“With regard to ‘azl, some of the scholars regarded it as haraam, but the view of the four imams is that it is permissible with the wife’s permission. And Allah nows best.” (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/110)

  1. e) As regarding other temporary ethods of family planning like condom etc., the scholars are divided whether their use is permitted or not. Allah (swt) has provided a natural method of planning the family, which is medically known as lactation amenorrhea. After the women gives birth to a child, till she breast feeds she does not have her menstrual cycle, thus the chances of pregnancy in this period of lactation is minimal.

*Allah says in the Qur’an “The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years…” (Al-Qur’an 2:233)

Reasons for Family Planning : All the various reasons for family planning can be divided into two categories:

  1. Either for poverty or
  2. Giving special attention to children by having fewer children.

As for those who are poor and fear that they will not be able to meet the economic expenses of the additional child, Allah (swt) has prescribed the system of zakaat. Every rich person who has the savings of more than the nisab level i.e. 85 gms of gold, should give 2.5% of his excess wealth every lunar year in charity. Those who are poor have the right to take the zakaat money.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an “…Kill not your children on a plea of want; We provide sustenance for you and for them;” (Al-Qur’an 6:151)

Allah (swt) also mentions in the Qur’a n “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (Al-Qur’an 17:31)

Both these verses seems to convey the same message but on scrutiny we realize that the first verse is meant for poor parents, who fear that if one more child is born in the family neither they will be able to survive nor the child, thus Allah (swt) says we provide sustenance for you and for them. In the other verse Allah (swt) says We shall provide sustenance for them and as well as for you, referring to rich parents who feel

that if they have less children they can concentrate on them better and give them better education and quality life. Here Allah (swt) reverses the order and mentions first the children and then the parent.

It is a misconception that if there are fewer children you can provide better education and quality life to your child:

However, its worth notable that one never knows which child could be a blessing from the Creator for the family. It is quite

Possible that the child, which the parents anticipate to be a bane, may turn out to be a boon for the family and the society. History bears witness to the fact that many of the great scientists, thinkers, and revolutionaries were not from only amongst the first two children of their parents.

Thus the child whom the parents consider unwanted may be a blessing to the family religiously and economically.

With regards to the claim of the people who say that the

growth in population increases poverty, this was mainly based o n Malthusian’s theory. This theory states that, to maintain prosperity and welfare of human race, its increase should be checked to correspond with the production of foodstuff.

But now we have realized that Malthusian’s theory has been proved wrong and there is no shortage of food grains.

 

However, the question of family planning and birth control was discussed in detail by the Majma al-Fiqh al-Islami. They had twenty three scholars research this topic and present their findings on this matter. The participants involved represented many different trends and schools of thought. Among the participants were Muhammad Ali al-Baar, Ali al-Salus, Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, Abdullah al-Basam, Hasan Hathut and Muhammad Sayid Tantawi. Their proceedings, papers and discussions may be found in Part One of the Fifth Volume of Majallah Majma al-Fiqh al-Islami (1988/1409 A.H.).

 

The following are some important questions and their answers related to the issue of birth control by Islamic scholars:

 

  1. Is child spacing allowed in Islam?

 

” Praises be to Allah

We hope that our brother will be certain that not one of the scholars said that it is obligatory for a couple to produce children, and that if they do not produce twenty children then they are sinning and deserve to be punished by Allah!

Similarly, not one of the earlier or contemporary scholars – as far as we know – has said that it is the fate of the wife to have a baby and breastfeed every single year, or that if the couple choose to delay pregnancy and having children, that is haraam.

We mention these facts to you, and ward off doubts based on illusion, so that we can introduce the Islamic ruling, first of all, and so as to highlight that everything that you mentioned in your question is not an argument that has any sound basis, because the Islamic ruling is far removed from what you mentioned in your question. In fact the Islamic evidence indicates that it is permissible to delay having children. As Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with said): “We used to engage in ‘azl [coitus interruptus, a form of contraception] at the time when the Qur’an was being revealed. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5208) and Muslim (1440). ‘Azl (coitus interruptus) means ejaculating outside the woman’s vagina in order to avoid pregnancy.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted this hadith as evidence for it being permissible to space having children in order to give them a proper Islamic upbringing, when he said:

If a woman has a lot of children, and it is difficult for her to give them a proper Islamic upbringing because they are so many, then there is nothing wrong with her taking something to space her pregnancies in order to achieve this important purpose, so that pregnancy will not adversely affect her or her children, as Allah has permitted ‘azl for this and similar purposes.

End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb by Ibn Baaz ed. by ash-Shuway‘ir (21/394)

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Taking contraceptive measures is permissible in principle, because the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) used the method of ‘azl (coitus interruptus) during the time of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and he did not forbid them to do that. But it is contrary to what is preferable, because having a lot of children is something that is prescribed and is desirable.

End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb by al-‘Uthaymeen (22/2)

 

So you may rest assured that if you and your wife decide to delay having children, as you mentioned in your question, that is not regarded as a sin or disobedience in principle, unless there are other considerations that have an impact on this individual or personal choice, which may be dictated by present-day circumstances:

Firstly:

If the decision to delay having children is widespread, at the societal, national or ummah-wide level, then in this case it becomes a destructive and negative choice, and in that case the ruling is that it is not allowed, because it has moved from being a permissible and natural matter to one that is imposed from without and will lead to negative consequences, and is therefore blameworthy.

 

Secondly:

If the motive for delaying having children is fear for their provision and livelihood, then this reflects a serious doubt concerning our belief in the will and decree of Allah and our belief in the abundant provision of Allah and that He will help those who strive to earn a living in the land. It reflects an unjustified fear of the future and a failure to produce and strive. In that case it is blameworthy and is not allowed, and there are clear fatwas that speak of it.

 

Thirdly:

If the reason for not having children is arguments and conflict between the spouses, where one of them does not want children and the other one does, then the one who is refusing does not have the right to do so, because having children is a right of both spouses, and it is not permissible for one of them to refuse with no excuse or good reason.

 

Fourthly:

If the motive for delaying having children, or ceasing to do so, is to follow the cultural norms of non-Muslims and imitate them blindly, out of admiration for their culture and infatuation with their way of life, then undoubtedly the ruling in this case is that it is not allowed. One of the great principles of Islamic teaching is that the individual Muslim should be independent in his thinking and think within the framework of Islamic teaching; he should weigh up pros and cons objectively in the light of the circumstances that he lives in, and base his decisions on the Islamic principles in which he believes and with which he grew up, far removed from the illusionary psychological influences that are imposed by the media that represents the corporate powers that exist today, and should free himself from feelings of inferiority in the face of what he sees of the attitudes, customs and actions of the disbelieving nations.

Fifthly:

If the means of delaying having children is medicine or surgical procedures that will prevent having children altogether (sterilisation), so that the woman or her husband will lose the ability to ever have children, then this is a serious transgression and is ingratitude for the blessing of Allah that He has bestowed upon His slaves, and it is destruction of a great blessing that Allah has instilled and created in them on the basis of great wisdom.

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) forbade such things. This is the case concerning which there is no difference of opinion among the scholars that it is prohibited, for it is the undermining of one of the most important aims of sharee‘ah and a blatant violation of one of the five necessities that Islam came to protect, which are: religious commitment, life, honour, wealth, and offspring.

 

These five cases are what the scholars refer to when they speak about spacing or limiting the number of children. They are the reason why they spoke in strict terms in many cases, so that no one would take undue advantage of the fatwas which say that contraception is permissible.

That is why we have mentioned these five cases here, so as to draw attention to them. In any other case, where a couple take an individual decision on the basis of a genuine need, there is no blame on them for that.

 

Anyone who reflects on the statement of the International Islamic Fiqh Council no. 39 (1/5), which has to do with family planning, will clearly understand that the way in which it is drafted is very careful and clear, as we have explained above. It says in the statement:

The session of the Islamic Fiqh Council held during its fifth conference in Kuwait, 1-6 Jumaada al-Aakhir 1409 AH/10-15 December 1988 AH.

After studying the research papers presented by council members and experts on the topic of family planning, and listening to the discussion that took place on the topic,

And based on the fact that one of the aims of marriage according to Islamic teaching is to produce children and preserve the human race, and that it is not permissible to undermine this aim, because undermining it is contrary to the texts of Islam and their teachings which call for having a lot of offspring, protecting them and caring for them because protecting offspring is one of the five holistic principles that are promoted by Islamic teaching,

The council determined the following:

Firstly: it is not permissible to promulgate laws restricting the freedom of couples to have children.

Secondly: it is prohibited to completely eradicate the ability to have children in the case of either the man or the woman, which is known as sterilisation, so long as there is no necessary reason, according to Islamic standards, for doing so.

Thirdly: it is permissible to use temporary methods of birth control for the purpose of spacing pregnancies, or preventing pregnancy for a specific length of time, if there is a valid reason, according to Islamic teachings, for doing so, according to what a couple decide on the basis of mutual consultation and consent, on condition that this does not lead to any harm and that the method used is Islamically permissible and does not cause harm to any existing pregnancy. End quote.

And Allah knows best.

 

  1. Is it permissible to use birth control so that a person has a child every five years, because he sees the corruption in society and would not be able to raise a lot of children close in age in this overwhelmingly corrupt society?

 

Praise be to Allaah.

This question was put to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who replied:

So long as this is the intention, then it is not permissible to do this, because it reflects a lack of trust in Allaah with regard to the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said “Marry the one who is loving and fertile…”

But if the birth control has to do with the condition of the woman – because she cannot cope with repeated pregnancies – this may be permissible, but it is better not to do it.

Question: Do you mean that it is more important to pay attention to the woman’s condition than to the corrupt nature of society?

Answer: Of course, because there is no certainty that one’s children will be corrupt; they may be righteous people who will bring benefits to society. And Allaah knows best.

 

  1. Please tell me if i should wait to try and have children based on my concern for giving any children Allaah ta’Ala might give me a good islamic family environment. i have debts from long ago that involve paying ribaa and i feel that i should wait to have children until i can pay off these debts?. please advise. jazakum Allahu khairan

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings)

“And no moving (living) creature is there on earth but its provision is due from Allaah” [Hood 11:6]

“And so many a moving (living) creature carries not its own provision! Allaah provides for it and for you. And He is the AllHearer, the AllKnower” [al-‘Ankaboot 29:60]

“Verily, Allaah is the AllProvider, Owner of Power, the Most Strong” [al-Dhaariyaat 51:58]

“so seek your provision from Allaah (Alone), and worship Him (Alone), and be grateful to Him”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:17]

Allaah condemned the people of the Jaahiliyyah who killed their children for fear of poverty, and He forbade doing what they did. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And kill not your children for fear of poverty. We shall provide for them as well as for you. Surely, the killing of them is a great sin” [al-Israa’ 17:31]

Allaah has commanded His slaves to put their trust in Him in all their affairs, and He is Sufficient for those who put their trust in Him. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and put your trust in Allaah if you are believers indeed” [al-Maa’idah 5:23]

“And whosoever puts his trust in Allaah, then He will suffice him” [al-Talaaq 65:3].

So you have to put your trust in your Lord and believe that He will provide for you and your children. Do not let the fear of poverty prevent you from seeking to have children, for Allaah has guaranteed provision for all. By not wanting children for fear of poverty, you are imitating the people of the Jaahiliyyah.

You should also note that taking out loans with interest is ribaa (usury), for which Allaah issues the warning of a painful torment. It is one of the seven sins which condemn a person to Hell. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Avoid the seven sins which condemn a person to Hell…[which include] consuming ribaa.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah has cursed the one who consumes ribaa, the one who pays it…” Consumption of ribaa is one of the greatest causes of poverty and loss of blessings, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allaah will destroy Ribaa and will give increase for Sadaqaat (deeds of charity, alms)” [al-Baqarah 2:276]

I think that you do not know the ruling on interest-based loans. So seeks Allaah’s forgiveness for what is in the past, and do not do it again. Wait for your Lord to grant you a way out and seek provision from Him. Put your trust in Him for Allaah loves those who put their trust in Him.

  1. I suffer from a severe sickness during pregnancy, that lasts almost until the moment of birth, especially in the first three months. It was so bad that I spent almost two months in hospital. During this time, I stopped eating and drinking completely, and I disliked everything. I was fed by means of injections in the hospital. In this case is it permissible for me to avoid getting pregnant and giving birth altogether, or is that not permitted?.

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Islam encourages people to get married and have children so as to increase the numbers of the Muslim ummah and to make the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) proud before all other nations on the Day of Resurrection, and in accordance with human nature (fitrah). The Prophets themselves (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon them) asked Allaah to bless them with righteous offspring. Allaah tells us that Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) said:

“My Lord! Grant me (offspring) from the righteous”

[al-Saaffaat 37:100] .

And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) Zakariyya (Zachariah), when he cried to his Lord: ‘O My Lord! Leave me not single (childless), though You are the Best of the inheritors’”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:89 . ]

Allaah tells us of many of the du’aa’s of the righteous, such as the verse in which He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who say: “Our Lord! Bestow on us from our wives and our offspring the comfort of our eyes, and make us leaders of the Muttaqoon (the pious)”

[al-Furqaan 25:74] .

People will remain like that so long as their nature (fitrah) remains sound.

Secondly:

Ongoing contraception is haraam.

But an exception is made to that in cases of necessity – as is the shar’i principle with regard to all haraam things, as it allows them in cases of necessity. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity”

[al-An’aam 6:119] .

So if a woman is weak or sick and will be harmed by pregnancy or there is fear for her life because of that, then it is permissible for her to use that which will prevent pregnancy.

In research prepared by the Standing Committee for Academic research and Issuing Fatwas it says:

… Based on that, limiting the number of offspring is haraam in general, and contraception may be haraam except in rare individual cases that are not general in application, such as if the pregnant woman will have to give birth in a manner other than that which is usual, and she will have to have surgery to bring the child forth; or if the woman’s health or life will be at risk due to pregnancy. In such cases contraception is permitted as anexception because of the likelihood of harm, so as to preserve her life, because Islam seeks to bring benefits and ward off harms, and to advance the greater of benefits and reduce the harm in the case of a conflict. End quote.

Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah (5/127).

Shaykh Ibn Baaz was asked about a woman who had given birth to ten children, and now pregnancy would cause her harm, and she wanted to have an operation to have her tubes tied.

He replied:

There is nothing wrong with her having the surgery mentioned, if doctors have determined that giving birth will harm her, and if her husband allows that. End quote.

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah (5/978).

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen said:

It is not permissible to have surgery to end or prevent pregnancy except in cases of necessity, when trustworthy doctors have established that giving birth will harm her or make her sickness worse, or there is the fear that pregnancy and childbirth will likely lead to her death. But it is essential that the husband give his approval to the ending or prevention of pregnancy. Then when the excuse ends the woman should go back to normal. End quote.

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah (2/977).

Based on this, if what happened to you was caused by pregnancy, then it is a passing thing that was caused by sickness or weakness which it is hoped will pass. In that case you can use contraceptives on a temporary basis, until Allaah heals you. But if it is an ongoing problem for which there is no hope of an end, then there is nothing wrong – in sha Allaah – with you using contraception on an ongoing basis.

And Allaah knows best.

 

  1. What is the shar’i ruling on using the coil (IUD – intrauterine device) as a means of preventing pregnancy, knowing that this means does not prevent fertilization of the egg, but it prevents the embryo from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus? May Allaah reward you with good.

 

Praise be to Allaah.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

What the Muslims should do is to have as many children as they can, because this is the command issued by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he said, “Marry the one who is loving and fertile, for I will be proud of your great numbers.” Because increasing the number of children increases the size of the ummah, and being of great numbers is a source of pride, as Allaah said, reminding the Children of Israel of that (interpretation of the meaning):

“And We helped you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in man-power” [al-Israa’ 17:6]

And Shu’ayb said to his people:

“ ‘And remember when you were but few, and He multiplied you’”

[al-A’raaf 7:86 – interpretation of the meaning]

No one would deny that if the ummah is great in number this will lend it pride and strength. This is contrary to what is imagined by those who think evil thoughts, that the large numbers of the ummah is the cause of its poverty and hunger. If the ummah increases in number and relies on Allaah, and believes in His promise, in the aayah “And no moving (living) creature is there on earth but its provision is due from Allaah” [Hood 11:6 – interpretation of the meaning] , then Allaah will make things easy for them and will grant them sufficient means from His Bounty.

On this basis, the answer to the question is as follows:

A woman should not use birth control pills unless the following two conditions are met:

(1) She should have a reason for that such as being sick and unable to bear a pregnancy every year, or being physically weak, or having other reasons why getting pregnant every year would be harmful for her.

(2) Her husband should give his permission, because the husband has the right to have children. This must also be done in consultation with a doctor, to find out whether taking these pills will be harmful to her or not.

If these two conditions are met, then it is OK for her to use these pills, but that should not be on a permanent basis, i.e., she should not use the type of birth control pills that prevent pregnancy permanently, because this is preventing progeny.

(Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah , 2/657, 658)

Concerning the harms caused by contraception, the Shaykh (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Birth control pills: I have heard from a number of sources that doctors say they are harmful. Even if we do not know this from the doctors, we know it from ourselves, because preventing something natural that Allaah has created and decreed for the daughters of Adam is undoubtedly harmful. Allaah is Wise, and He has only created this blood which flows at certain times for a reason. If we prevent it with these medicines, that is harmful without a doubt.

But I have heard that the matter is worse than we imagine, that they may be a means of damaging the womb, and a means of causing nervous disorders. This is something we must beware of.

(Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh , question no. 1147)

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked:

What is the ruling on removing the uterus in order to avoid having children for medical reasons which are either present, or may occur in the future and have been predicted by medical and scientific means?

He answered: if that is necessary, then it is OK, otherwise it should not be done, because the Lawgiver urges us to have children and promotes that in order to increase the size of the ummah. But if there is a necessary reason then it is OK, just as it is permissible to use means of contraception for a limited time for a legitimate shar’i reason. (9/434)

What is said concerning the birth control pill may also be said concerning the coil. It has been definitely proven by the doctors that this contraceptive method causes harm, especially when it is used continually. It is known that the woman who has a coil inserted has an increased flow of menstrual blood, and her period may come twice a month, which causes an iron deficiency in her body. Iron is one of the important minerals which the body needs. Some women may become anaemic when they use the coil and it makes their periods longer, resulting in the woman losing a large amount of blood and thus a large amount of the iron stored in the body. It has also been proven that many women suffer infections of the uterus as a result of using the coil. Despite all this, a woman may become pregnant with the coil in place, as has happened to a number of women. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.

And Allaah knows best.

 

[email protected]

Refusal To Call A Female Muslim Wearing Hijab To Bar By MSSN State Lagos Unit Area

0

In the name of Allah, the beneficent and the Merciful

The Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria, Lagos State Area Unit under the distinguished leadership of Amir Mas’ud Kolawole, ASCAP a no has condemned in its entirety the refusal to call AbdulSalam Fridaos Amasa to the Nigerian Bar on the last Call to Bar ceremony, on the basis that she wore an hijab.

This injustice took place at the International Conference Centre, Abuja by the Nigerian Law School and by extension the Council of Legal Education on Wednesday, 13th December, 2017.

This unconstitutional act has been in existence for a very long period of time, wherein female Muslims have always been victimised and traumatised by the Nigerian Law School and the Council of Legal Education, Abuja to remove their hijab for the Call.

This act is archaic, barbaric, unreasonable and unconstitutional, as it’s not in conformity with the global trend in the noble profession. It is imperative to state that, even those who colonized us have gone beyond such practice. One wonders while we still hold on to such archaic and out-fashioned practice.

We therefore ask the Nigerian Law School and by extension the Council for Legal Education on what has happened to Subsection (1) of section 38 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2011 as amended)?, which provides that every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and Religion … and in Public and Private to propagate and practice his religion…

We must also emphasize that there are several other judgements which guarantee the right of Female Muslims to hijab. This include, the Court of Appeal Decisions in Provost, Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin and two (2) ORS vs Bashirat Saliu and ors; AbdulKareem v Lagos State Govt (2016). In addition, Osun State High Court also delivered a judgement on 3rd June, 2016 in a case between Sheikh Olayiwola and ORS Vs Osun State Government and ORS pronounced the judgement in favour of Female Muslim Students.

Beyond all these, the use of hijab by the Female Muslims is an injunction by Allah which every conscious female Muslim MUST adhere to as stated in Qur’an 24 v 31:

Surah An-Noor, Verse 31:
وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
(English – Yusuf Ali)

On this note, MSSN, Lagos State Area Unit with higher hierarchies of the society (B-Zone, National Headquarters) in conjunction with other relevant Islamic bodies, will put necessary mercenaries in place to right this wrong and therefore call on all Muslims all over the country to stand against this injustice and do everything possible to make sure that female Muslims are no longer victimized and traumatized at the Call to Bar Ceremony because of their Allah given right.

We therefore use this medium to call on the Nigeria Law School and by extension the Council of Legal Education and all other concerned Institutions to reverse this archaic, crooked, unprofessional, unconstitutional rule.

Signed
MALLAM YUSUF ‘AWWAL
PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
MSSN, LAGOS STATE AREA UNIT
☎ 09055577386
www.facebook.com/mssnlagosau
twitter: @mssnlagosau

MSSN… the future of the Ummah

 

 

Credit : Aledeh.com

Amasa Firdaus: “They Try To Suppress Us At The Law School” Says Muslim Attorney…”Controversy On Hijab Is Needless” -NBA President…Plus More

0

The refusal to call a female Muslim Nigerian Law School graduate, Miss Amasa Firdaus, to bar, has continued to generate controversy in the country.

ALEDEH recalls that the University of Ilorin graduate was denied access to the call to bar ceremony after insisting on wearing the hijab during the ceremony.

Miss Firdaus was specifically refused entry into the hall for insisting to wear the wig on top of her hijab–a headscarf.

Few hours after the news broke, Amasa Firdaus and Hijab topped Nigerian Twitter trend, following the significant attention the case attracted.

Speaking on the development, the devout Muslim said she remains resolute in her convictions to set a precedent for Hijab-wearing Muslims during the ceremony.

“My major concern is the approval of Hijab so that every person coming behind me will be able to use it for the call to bar (ceremony)”, she said.

Amasa Firdaus.

They Try To Suppress Us At The Law School” Says Female Muslim Attorney

Following the controversy surrounding Miss Firdaus’s lack of access to the call to bar ceremony, another female Muslim attorney, Barrister Maryama Lawal who was called to bar on the same day Miss Firdaus was denied access to the call to bar ceremony, has narrated her ordeal.

In an interview with Abdulqudus Sulaiman Oye, the female attorney, stressed that those at the helm of affairs try to suppress Muslims at the law school, adding that she and other female Muslims were called to bar after they removed their hijab.

“All of us, and all the other tons of hijab sister I know even our seniors had to remove their hijabs. You can’t go through the doors with it on. After u take it off, they come looking for you in the hall to make sure you don’t wear it back although I wore mine back when the ceremony started I had to take it off.

Speaking further, Barrister Lawal disclosed that the Muslim sisters are not allowed to wear the hijab during dinner.

“They don’t allow us to use our hijab during the dinner, I was lucky in my campus because for the first time and by the efforts of one the senior lecturers who is a Muslim we used our hijab at all three dinners. But in campuses like Lagos and Abuja they gave them a tough time”, she added.

How My Certificate Was Seized Over Hijab – Female Muslim Attorney, Aisha Zubair

Another female Muslim attorney, Barrister Aisha Zubair, a graduate of Unilorin, has revealed how her certificate was seized at the call to bar ceremony because she wore her hijab.

Zubair said she succeeded in putting on her hijab to the podium and refused the ceremonial handshake with the Chief Justice of Nigerian, CJN.

Narrating the inhumane treatment that greeted her audacious attempt Zubair said: “I had my hijab on for the ceremony although it was tough and I had to sneak it in and remove it up to three times but each time I wore it back. At the end, I walked up to the podium in Hijab and refused to shake hands with the CJN.

“There were consequences though, they barged to my seat, demanded I remove the Hijab, stepped on it several times, kicked it around even more times then asked a guard to stand by it so I couldn’t retrieve it. Then they demanded my certificate and seized it. I had to go beg after the ceremony for it” she opined.

Having To Remove The Hijab Is Dehumanising – UNILAG Best Graduating Law Student, Bar. Aaisha Okesola

UNILAG best Graduating Law student and first class graduate of Law School, Bar. Aaisha Okesola has condemned the act of forcing female Muslim law graduates to remove their hijab as dehumanising.

In an interview with Abdulqudus Sulaiman Oye, Okesola described the process of instructing female Muslims to remove the hijab as ” discriminating on grounds of religion”.

Asked if she was instructed to remove her hijab before she was called to bar, Okesola said: “Yes. My view is simple. Having to remove the hijab is dehumanising. I felt so light, I couldn’t wait for the ceremony to be over.

She continued: “Wearing the hijab for the call would not in the least bit, affect the ceremony.
The Constitution is clear on the right to religion. The grounds for derogation from the right to religion are clearly stated in Section 45, none of these instances occurred at the call ceremony, so I see no reason why we should be told to remove it.

“I think the problem stems from not understanding how important the hijab is to a Muslim girl. Most people assume it’s a mere piece of clothing, so removing it for a few hours would do no harm.

” Instructing us to remove the hijab is discriminating on grounds of religion. Meaning if a Muslim girl is not willing to compromise, the legal profession is not for her. Ordinarily, the call ceremony should have been a happy one. At least, an opportunity to celebrate the years of hard work but most Muslim sisters could not enjoy it”, Okesola lamented.

Asked if all the Muslim sisters had to remove their hijabs to gain entry into the conference centre, Okesola said: “Yes. Your head must be bare to enter the hall. The woman even made my friend and I show her where we dropped our caps outside. She told us to pick it after the call”.

 Hijab Simply Means Decent Dressing For Muslim Women – Sultan Of Sokoto

Sultan of Sokoto and President-Generation of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Dr Mohammad Sa’ad Abubakar.

The Sultan of Sokoto and President-Generation of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Dr Mohammad Sa’ad Abubakar has decried the raging controversy over Hijab.

Sa’ad Abubakar who spoke in Lagos on Saturday during the fifth National Convention of Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) with the theme, “Public Trust and Accountability”, said Hijab simply means decent dressing for Muslim women and part and parcel of Islam.

Represented by a member of NSCIA and Wazirin of Katsina, Prof. Sanni Abubakar Lugga, the Sultan said Hijab is not only a mode of dressing in Islam only but it is also an accepted mode of dressing in Christianity and Judaism.

The Sultan stressed that Muslims are peace- loving and they should be allowed to practise their religion as stipulated by Allah and as contained in the traditions of Prophet Mohammad.

“His eminence wonders while Hijab has now become a controversial issue. Hijab simply means decent dressing, decent dressing by the females. So why should decent dressing be a problem? The Hijab is just an Arabic word. In English, it means decent dressing.

“His Eminence has asked Nigerians to reflect and see that this is not only an Islamic mode of dressing but a Christian mode of dressing. It is also a Judaism mode of dressing and it is a dressing for every decent woman. It is a dressing for any woman who wants to preserve her chastity in public.

“Secondly, in Nigerian constitution, it is absolutely clear. Why should Nigerian Muslims be molested and even denied their own right? The Appeal Court ruling in Ilorin is there, the Appeal Court in Lagos and also the High Court all delivered judgement in favour of Hijab.

“Justice Alooma, the former CJN, Justice Bukalchuwa and other Senior Justices in Nigeria wear their Hijab and then the wig on top of it. The Nigeria Judicial Council (NJC), the Highest body in the judiciary has not said, ‘no, they should stop’ which means the Nigerian constitution allows the Hijab, the Nigerian Courts through these three judgements have allowed the Hijab and the NJC through these senior judges have allowed the Hijab.

“Why will a legal school refuse our sister’s induction into the judiciary simply because she is wearing Hijab? Is the law school saying they are above the NJC, they are above the Nigerian constitution, they are above these three senior courts?” he questioned.

Controversy On Hijab Is Needless – NBA President

President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mahmoud Olufunke Abimbola, SAN.

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mahmoud Olufunke Abimbola, SAN, says the controversy on hijab is needless.

The NBA President was reacting to the development where a female Muslim law school graduate Amasa Firdaus was prevented from being called to Bar due to the wearing of the hijab, said the matter would be addressed, adding that the NBA would embrace diversity.

Barrister Abimbola made the comment on micro-blogging site, Twitter, where he made reference to a UK based Nigerian attorney who was recognized for promoting diversity in the legal profession.

The NBA President wrote: “UK based Nigerian lawyer recognized for promoting diversity in the legal profession.

“The NBA will embrace diversity and tolerance in the Nigerian legal profession. The Hijab issue will be addressed.

” My Daughter Zubaida Mahmoud at the ceremony admitting her to the New York Bar earlier this year…the controversy here on Hijab is needless”, he added.

Barrister Abimbola went further to share a picture of his daughter being admitted to the New York Bar while wearing a hijab.

 

Credit : Aledeh.com

Amasa Firdaus and the Hijab imbroglio By Femi Owolade

0

A Christian with conscience Femi Owolade wrote:

Amasa Firdaus and the Hijab imbroglio

I’ve stayed up all night to collect as much evidence to discard all the nonsensical talk spewed by bigoted Nigerians on this issue, like hogwash that men set before swine. The unfortunate result is that I have to miss church today, but I’ll do that a million times over to defend the truth.

Can we blame unwitting Nigerians, who consistently display their hypocritical tendencies, for having an inflexibly bent or is it hell-bent view on Islam? YES.

The so-called liberals who cast aspersions on Amasa Firdaus and mock her fundamental right to practice her religion in the most complete way by wearing the hijab are the same set of hypocrites who wrote long epistles to support Aisha Ahmad’s right NOT to wear the hijab. Is doublespeak not fast-becoming the lingua franca of these hypocritical liberals?

Without further elaboration, we must now address the material issues here.
The key argument pushed by those who support Firdaus is that, like most laws and regulations in Nigeria, the laws of the council of legal education are outdated, stripped of autochtony
and MUST be reformed with immediate alacrity.

Before we go into a thorough examination of the law, I think it’s important to state here that we are not asking for much. We want the laws of the council of legal education to, in consonance with section 38 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), provide an environment where Firdaus and all women of faith can practice their religion in the most comprehensive form. Thus, we ask for the laws of the council of legal education to reflect -and not be repugnant to- the principles of fairness, equity and natural justice, as articulated by Frederick Lugard when he initiated the first Nigerian legislation in 1900.

As the Hijab is a veil of headscarf traditionally worn by Muslim in Nigeria and across the world, we expect that Firdaus ought to be allowed to exercise her rights of religion by wearing a headscarf to her call to bar ceremony. After all, Code 8 of the Law Society of Kenya’s Advocates Dress Code states: ‘ADVOCATES WHOSE FAITH REQUIRES THEM TO WEAR HEAD GEAR MAY WEAR THE SAME SO LONG AS THE COLOUR OF THE HEAD GEAR IS CHARCOAL, BLACK, WHITE, GREY, NAVY BLUE AND OTHER DARKISH COLOURS’. This is Kenya, an ex-colony of the British with the same legal system as Nigeria, with 83% christian population and a modest 11.2% Muslim minority that can practice their religion in the most comprehensive form while the 52% Muslim majority (according to Pew survey, or 53% according to DHS) in Nigeria can’t do the same. It is quite clear that this infringement is not consistent with the principles of fairness, equity and natural justice.

We accept that the Federal Republic of Nigeria only has one ‘secular’ Bar. We also concede to the fact that Nigeria’s Call to Bar ceremony is a spiritual, ritualistic, official and corporate exercise with a very strict dress code. The rules are clear that a prospective Barrister must adhere to the dress code, and Firdaus’ hijab is a breach of that code.

But it is exactly this code that we have come to challenge. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria forms the underlying basis for the country’s legal system- it’s referred to as the ground norm. Any law of the council of legal education that is inconsistent with this constitution is void. In layman language, the constitution of Nigeria is the supreme law of the land, and will for this reason trump every other law- be it the dress code of a work place or the laws of the council of legal education.

S 38.(1) of the Constitution is clear on the issue of a Nigerian’s freedom of religion, when it states: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance”.

This statutory provision has been reinforced in a number of cases, like the famous court of appeal case: Lagos State Vs Miss Ashiat Abdkareem CA/L/135/15. In a key ruling, Justice Gumel held that the use of the Hijab was an Islamic injunction and also an act of worship hence it would constitute a violation of the appellants’ rights to stop them from wearing the Hijab in public schools. Also important to this issue is the ruling in the case of Provost Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin vs Basirat Saliu Suit No. CA/IL/49/2009, where the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Judicial Division held that: “The use of veil (Hijab) by female Muslims qualifies as a fundamental right under section 38 of the Constitution”.

Though, the facts of these cases do not necessarily correspond to the issue we are faced with here, the precedence is certainly NOT inconsequential. I must admit that I am not so much conversant with the Nigerian legal system, as I didn’t read law here; but I know that like England and Wales- where I studied Law, Nigeria is a Common law Jurisdiction (with an adversarial system of justice). In common law jurisdictions, the decisions of important cases usually set legal precedents for subsequent cases to follow. For these reasons, Firdaus ought to be allowed to wear a headscarf- in accordance with her religious tradition- to her call to bar ceremony.

I think I’ve said enough to make my so-called liberal friends have a change of heart, but I must add a few more points

Nigeria’s legal system was coercively enforced by the British, whose colonial system ill-served the shari’a practiced in northern Nigeria (the region formerly constituting the Sokoto Caliphate and Kanem-Borno Empire) for almost 100 years before the advent of colonialism, and 300 years in places like Kano where Sheikh Al-Maghili’s highly sophisticated constitution titled ‘The Obligation of Princes: An Essay on Muslim Kingship’, dealt with virtually every topic contained in the constitutions of modern states, from the conduct of rulers to the rights of citizens, but from an Islamic perspective.

From 1809 till 1903, the whole of Usmaniyya or the Sokoto Caliphate (i.e. present day ‘Core North’ and the Middle Belt region- where Firdaus undertook her Bachelors degree in Law) was governed under a legal system known as the Maliki fiqh with further commentaries added by Abdullahi dan Fodio, the younger brother of Usman dan Fodio, who wrote several works on law and how legal practitioners (lawyers of those days) must conduct themselves. All of these were coercively replaced by the British colonialists. Today, we find ourselves in a situation where a lawyer from northern Nigeria is subjected to wearing a Whig and gown in the scorching heat- a practice fit for no other purpose but to massage the ego of our long gone colonial ‘fathers’. How can we possibly think this is okay?

Firdaus may eventually fade into obscurity and I’m predicting that she will eventually be called to bar, but the bigger issue of how Nigeria and other former British colonies will have a legal system that is autochthonous (original to Nigerians) will certainly not go away. For this reason, there’s nothing wrong in taking the bull by the horn as soon as practical, and deciding once and for all to start destroying the usable colonial legacies we have today, as this is the only act that can ensure that Africans
release themselves from the psychological chains of European colonialism. This idea may not sit well with many Nigerians, who are too lazy to challenge the coercive status quo and too comfortable ‘enjoying’ some of the second-rate and rather useless legacies of colonialism, but as we’ve seen in the past 60 years, African heroism in the post-colonial epoch is measured by nothing but the brave resistance to useless norms and laws put in place by our European colonial ‘fathers’. Just think of African heroes like Nelson Mandela, Kwame Nkrumah,
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Muammar Gaddafi, Leopold Senghor and even our own Aminu Kano, who fought tirelessly to liberate Africa from futile colonial influence. I’m not asking anyone to be like Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin, and exercise a mindless disdain for everything European. We can of course still make use of some European legacies. All I’m asking is for us to shine our eyes and start questioning some of the unusable laws that regulate our professions and everyday behaviour.

By Femi Owolade

Firdaus, "Crucified" for our Redemption by Bashir Lucas Samson Lukman

0

Of Norms, Laws, Prejudice and Revolution

 

Since the #Istandwithfirdaus campaign started, we have read and still reading pros and cons. Christians have taken it upon themselves to condemn sister Firdaus coupled with obnoxious remarks. The basis of their argument is ” THE LAW”. We have refuted them intellectually, logically and I think we should refute them scripturally using their Bible.

 

Before I go into the scripture, let me write about my experience which will serve as an opener. I wrote this article on November 30, 2015;

 

“ROBOTIC HUMANS.

I was at First Bank, Osun State this morning for a transaction.

The security personnel at the gate said, “Welcome to first Bank”

The one at the door to enter into the bank also said, “Welcome to first Bank”

I got inside the bank and another one said, “Welcome to first bank”

They are saying this to everyone who has something to do in the bank. I wondered why they could not skip some people to save themselves stress.

I was done with the transaction so I had to leave. On getting to each of the security personnel, they said, “Have a nice day” respectively, same way they were doing to other customers.

After the security personnel at the gate said, “Have a nice day”, I remembered I forgot the bottle water I had with me so I had to get back inside the bank . when I turned to enter the bank premises again, The guy who just said “Have a nice day” said “welcome to First Bank” and the other two repeated the same process on getting to them.

I picked up the item, and while heading out, the three of them repeated “have a nice day” on getting to them.”

 

At some points, some laws need to change especially when they are not rational and logical. Many Norms and laws have changed for centuries and those who championed the change are celebrated and this our generation will never be an exception. We cannot allow bigotry, hatred and prejudice make us blind.

 

Albert Afeso Akanbi is a Christian that writes against Muslims. I sent him the article I wrote yesterday and he replied,

“Ur girl is an idiot, she should have gone to study Islamic law where she can even wear niqap instead

 

If tomorrow, Shannon worshiper decides to wearbhis own regalia to the ceremony, Wat will u guys day

Muslims are too infantile in their thinking, it’s just like you coming to MA house and telling me how to live, I mean, this is secular law, if she wanted to wear hijab couldn’t she have gone to study Islamic law? Why are u guys like dis

My brother that is the law, what’s human and right about it, so shango worshipers can come with their own regalia abi?”

I replied,

 

” [12/17, 22:15] lucassamson24: A secular state surrounded by Churches and mosques? 😁😁😁

[12/17, 22:15] lucassamson24: Where should we place fundamental human rights?

[12/17, 22:16] lucassamson24: What do we do to a law that contradicts the constitution?

[12/17, 22:18] lucassamson24: Where is the law? Let’s see it Bro

[12/17, 22:19] lucassamson24: We know of Christians that wore gowns to school in Osun State, they stopped 🙄

[12/17, 22:31] lucassamson24: Keep searching

[12/17, 22:51] lucassamson24: I’ll be waiting for a law that goes against her action. You might find your law in section 4 of the constituted

[12/17, 23:07] lucassamson24: And section 38…

He read the replies but we need to beg him to reply!

Adekunle Al miftau Adeite posted something on Facebook yesterday asking people to read 1Corinthians 11:6;

 

 “For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” 

 

A Christian, Bobaseye Akinyemi Olusegun Fasakin made a comment ;

 

“Simply an advice by Apostle Paul to the Corinthians’ Christian not God’s command. Simple.”

 

Innalillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun. The question is, why not separate the words of Paul from the words of God? Now, let us treat the topic of this article.

 

Among the Efik and Ibibio, killing of twins was a norm. ” was the belief in Calabar that if a women had twins one of them had to be a devil so the twins were left in the jungle in clay pots to die. Mary Slessor successfully fought against the practice of killing twins at infancy.” (Wiki). Mary Slessor who died in 1915 was awarded  the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in 1913 and till today, she is being celebrated. That was a norm and it changed!!!

 

In pre-islamic Arabia, killing of infant females used to be a norm and was changed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I ask, do norms like this have to stay? Are these types of revolution a crime?

 

The same people who shout, “it is the law, it is the norm!!!” celebrated the likes of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther, even Fela Kuti. They cannot claim that the protestants committed a crime by making a revolution against the catholic church. Meanwhile, there is a picture of a catholic nun that removed her head cover to wear the wig. She is not different from the Muslims that removed their hijab too and her failure to demand a change is not a justification for a system not bounded by logical and rational laws!!!

 

 

To further silent these Christians, I will use Jesus Christ from a Christian’s perspective as a case study. Jesus himself was revolutionary and he demanded a change yet he knew that was THE LAW AND NORM!!!

 

In the book of John chapter 2, we read,

 

[14] There He (Jesus)  found in the temple [enclosure] those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting there [also at their stands].

 

[15]And having made a lash (a whip) of cords, He drove them all out of the temple [enclosure]–both the sheep and the oxen–spilling and scattering the brokers’ money and upsetting and tossing around their trays (their stands).

 

The Pharisees, Sadducees knew these were going on inside the temple yet they did not nothing. If sister Firdaus had arranged with some Muslims to flog people out of ICC, will they not call her a terrorist?

 

They say, “why study law when she knew she will not obey the law?” and I ask, “Why did Jesus go to the temple when he knew buying and selling in the temple was a norm?”

 

Who thinks Jesus was not  revolutionary? Let’s read more from the Bible!

 

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

 

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

 

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

 

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night) , and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

 

 

 

Now, Christians tell us that Jesus came and was crucified to save them from the law using verses like this to justify it,

 

Ephesians 2

[15]By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace.

 

Unfortunately, Christians like Bobaseye Akinyemi Olusegun Fasakin will not see this as being directed to the Ephesians alone! What double standards! In fact, these are some some of the laws Christians claimed Jesus came to save them from through his CruciFiction;

 

Additional Laws For Burnt Offerings
Additional Laws For Fellowship Offerings
Additional Laws For Grain Offerings
Additional Laws For Guilt Offerings
Additional Laws For Sin Offerings
Laws About Crop Protection
Laws About Murder And Accidental Killing
Laws About Personal Injury
Laws About Personal Property
Laws About Restitution
Laws About Slaves
Laws About Theft
Laws About Unintentional Sins
Laws Concerning Cities Of Refuge
Laws Concerning War With Canaanite Nations
Laws Concerning Witnesses
Laws For Guilt Offerings
Laws For Three Festivals
Laws For Vows
Laws Of Inheritance
Laws Of Sexual Relations
Marriage And Divorce Laws

 

Please, what then is the crime of Sister Firdaus for standing against a law that is illogical, obnoxious, irrational and preposterous?

 

Now, if any christian asks, ” Do you think Firdaus is making a sacrifice? If she is, why is she asking to be called to Bar?” and I reply in advance ” Do you not say Jesus Christ sacrificed his life for you? Where is the sacrifice if he was raised up the third day according to your claims?

 

 

All arguments on Laws and Norms are busted, please, let us see more counter-arguments so we publish more rebuttals!

 

#Muslimsarenotrepugnant

 

Bashir Lucas Samson Lukman

[email protected]

[email protected]

+2347015779491

Misgoded reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

Similarly, why should humankind trust its salvation to any of the gospels,
considering that they are of unknown origin and authorship?
The Jesus Seminar is perhaps one of the most objective and sincere attempts of an
ecumenical council of Christian scholars to determine the authenticity of the recorded
acts and sayings of Jesus. Yet their methodology involves casting votes! Two thousand
years after the ministry of Jesus, nearly two hundred scholars are formulating a collective
Christian opinion regarding the reliability of the quotes and historical reports of Jesus by
casting colored beads. For example, as regards the reported words of Jesus, the
definitions of the bead colors are as follows:
Red—Jesus said it or something very close to it. Pink—Jesus
probably said something like it, although his words have suffered in
transmission. Gray—these are not his words, but the ideas are close to his
own. Black—Jesus did not say it; the words represent the Christian
community or a later point of view. 151
Other Christian committees have attempted to authenticate Bible texts by similar
methodologies. The editors of the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament:
Second Edition are alphabetically minded:
By means of the letters A, B, C, and D, enclosed within “braces”
{} at the beginning of each set of textual variants the Committee has
sought to indicate the relative degree of certainty, arrived at the basis of internal considerations as well as of external evidence, for the reading
adopted as the text. The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain,
while B indicates that there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means
that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text of the
apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows that there is a very
high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. 152
Bruce M. Metzger describes using similar methodology in his A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament. “In fact,” he writes, “among the {D}
decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and
therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.”153
Now doesn’t that give us a warm, secure feeling in trusting the Bible with the
salvation of mankind?
But I digress. The point is that these ranking systems are probably about the best
possible, given the limitations of the biblical record, but what a sad comment that is!
Compared to the exquisitely refined system of hadith authentication, these colored­bead
and A­B­C­D classification systems are a bit wanting, to say the least.
The historical record keeping is relevant, for when a person hears a story—even a
believable story at that—the first question is usually “Where did you hear that?” Any
reasonable set of historical standards includes the identification and verification of sources. The Holy Qur’an and many hadith traditions satisfy the highest degrees of
authentication. But the majority of Bible verses don’t.*
How does this relate to the issue at hand? Simple. The miracles that occurred
through Muhammad are no less numerous or impressive than those of Jesus, and are
witnessed by an unimpeachable historical record that puts all others of similar time
period to shame. So just as the miracles of Moses, Elisha, and Muhammad don’t imply
divinity, neither do those of Jesus.
Let’s look at a few examples:
Jesus fed thousands with a few fish and loaves of bread. But Elisha fed
a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn (2 Kings 4:44);
granted a widow such an abundant flow of oil from a jar that she was able to pay
off her debts, save her sons from slavery, and live on the profits (2 Kings 4:1­7);
and gave increase to a handful of flour and spot of oil such that he, a widow and
her son had enough to eat for many days, after which “The bin of flour was not
used up, nor did the jar of oil run dry …” (1 Kings 17:10­16). So what does that
make Elisha? The historical record of Muhammad feeding the masses with a
handful of dates on one occasion, a pot of milk on another, and enough meat for a
small party on still another are equally miraculous. Likewise are the stories of his
watering the masses (1,500 people on one occasion) from a single bowl of water.
Yet no Muslim claims divinity for Muhammad.

Jesus healed the lepers. Likewise, Elisha healed Naaman (2 Kings 5:7­
14). For that matter, the disciples were bidden to such service in Matthew 10:8.  What does that make them?
Jesus cured a blind man. Elisha not only struck his enemies blind, but
restored vision to the blind through prayer (2 Kings 6:17­20). Muhammad
reportedly cured blindness through prayer as well.
Jesus raised the dead. Once again, Elisha beat him to it, having raised
two children from the dead (1 Kings 17:22 and 2 Kings 4:34). Furthermore, the
disciples were bidden to raise the dead (Matthew 10:8). So once again, what does
that make them?
Jesus walked on water. Had he been around in the time of Moses, he
wouldn’t have had to.
Jesus cast out devils. So did his disciples (Matthew 10:8). So did the sons
of the Pharisees (Matthew 12:27 and Luke 11:19). So, for that matter, do the
wayward followers whom Jesus will reportedly disown (see Matthew 7:22)—a
disconcerting thought considering how many priests and ministers perform such
theatrics, even if real.
So if we seek evidence of Jesus being divine, we are forced to look beyond
miracles.

 

 

…..continue reading……

 

At-Tauhid reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

One should not say “My Slave (Male or Female)”

 

In As-Sahih (Muslim), Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) narrated that Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: “One of you should not say, ‘Feed your Lord (Rabbaka), help your lord in performing
ablution, but he should say, ‘My master (e.g. Feed your master instead of lord, etc.) (Saiyidi)’. or ‘My guardian’ (Maulai), and one should not say, ‘My slave (‘Abdi), or ‘My slave girl (‘Amati), but he should say ‘My lad (Fatai)’, ‘My lass (Fatati)’ and ‘My boy (Ghulami)’ “.

 

Important issues of the Chapter

1) Forbiddance of saying: “My slave-boy” or “My slave-girl.”

2) The slave should not say: “My lord”, nor should it be said to him: “Feed your lord”.

3) Teaching the master to instead say: “My lad”, “My Lass” and “My boy.”

4) Teaching the slave to instead say: “My master” or “My guardian.”

5) The point here is to emphasize Tauhid in the fullest, even in one’s expressions.

 

 

.…..continue reading…..

OPEN LETTER TO NIGERIA GOVERNMENTS AND NIGERIANS

0

 

It is sad that one of the orders of the day in Nigeria is victimization of Muslim citizens of this country who have chosen to be subservient to the Creator by obeying His commandments. It is disheartening that it is now a crime in Nigeria to be Muslims who strive to please God through His orders, even though no one is being disturbed through this obedience to our Lord. Religious intolerance has grown rapidly among many Nigerians who see those who practise the pristine Islam as extremists rather than those who seek the pleasure of their Lord.

Muslim men and women have been, on several occasions, victimized and disallowed to enjoy their rights and freedom of religion while other people of other faiths enjoy theirs. Muslim girls, ladies, and women have on different occasions being denied of their hijab and niqab(face veil) in schools, places of work and even in the public; sometimes victimized, sometimes assaulted and at other times prohibited. As for the men, their beards have been the major problem they’re faced with. Alas! There have not been genuine reasons behind these prohibitions and violation of humanity. There have been several things tendered as excuses for the reasons for these violations.
One is “for security reasons”, another is “not being smart” while at several other times, there are no reasons at all.

Prohibition of Muslim females from wearing their hijab or niqab(face veil) because of security and safety is so flimsy and unacceptable.
Doing a quick but thorough search into records, there are countless number of cases of incidents where Nigeria Armed forces; police, security workers, and even the Nigeria soldiers violated (and still violate) human rights, victimize citizens, physically and sexually assault, and even engage/co-operate in robbery and kidnapping. This is no news to a current Nigerian as these cases are often released in press reports and are read on newspapers. Different people use the social media and blogs to narrate their experiences and experiences of other people who are victims of these violations. Attaching few of these news articles from punch and vanguard newspapers, and other news sites may not be necessary, but these facts cannot be denied. Not in any record, do we have it that our Muslim females in hijab and niqab were or are found with these acts of violation, but records have it where they have been and are being victims of not allowed to wear their hijab, stripped of their clothing, their niqabs being removed or opened from their faces, among several other assaults. So, in whose hands are people not safe? From whom should the people be secured if those entrusted with security of the citizens are themselves the ones ordering or are found with criminals who violate security?

The only thing that has ever been cited is the issue of suicide bombing by insurgents who may under the guise of the veil harbor bombs, but no news ever confirmed this to be true. They have always been reported as assumptions. There is a wide gap difference between people who disguise as some people and do evil, and those who are themselves real, yet do evil. This is the case with the assumed Veiled bombers and the Armed forces. So, if anyone would hate, violate and want to disallow, or even want to ban the hijab/niqab, then the armed forces uniforms must not be spared. In fact, the bodies themselves must not be spared either.

Talking of other reasons like smartness, to be smart is definitely to be good-looking. How does wearing the hijab/niqab or the beard define not being smart if they’re not dirty or unkempt? Tight fitted dresses are never a definition or characteristic of smart outfits. Never does shaving the beards portray smartness. What defines smartness of outfits is cleanliness and the style may take any form. Sadly, Tight fitted dresses have now been given to be the only smart dresses and shaving the beards is the only acceptable smart facial look. Hence, the adherents of Islamic injunctions are kept under pressure to go against their faith in schools, universities, work places, the society, et al.

Expressly, the Nigerian constitution, under Chapter 4, section 38, subsection 1, gives rights to freedom.

38.— Right to freedom of thoughts conscience and religion

(1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Why then are the Muslims denied of their rights to manifest and propagate their religion in practice and observance?

Subsection 2 states
(2) No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if such instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own, or a religion not approved by his parents or guardian.

Why then must the Muslims be forced to remove their hijab/niqab or shave their beards and do contrary to theirs? Why must they be forcefully reverted from being Muslims to another religion other than Islam, all in the name of attending a school?

Some institutions of education and work create these violation rules in their constitutions of operation, while others just make it as part of their “tradition”, but never can a constitution of an institution preside over the country’s constitution. Still in the same Nigeria constitution do we find in Chapter 1, section 1, subsections 1 and 3
1.—Supremacy of the constitution

(1) This Constitution is Supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(3) If any other Law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other Law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

So, where are the citizens of this Giant of Africa?
If some people have the freedom to uncover, why can’t others have the freedom to cover? Why do some people enjoy some rights and freedom while others are denied of the same freedom when section 42, subsection 1a of the country’s constitution gives right to freedom against discrimination?

42.— Rights to freedom from discrimination

(1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person—

(a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action, of the government to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, circumstance of birth, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject.

Some other people talk about work or profession ethics. The hijab/niqab has no violation to any profession dressing ethics. No profession, other than prostitution, has a dressing ethic that prohibit body covering. While talking about the niqab (face veil), other people talk about “communication” and seeing the face of the person they’re communicating with. In the definition and criteria of communication, seeing the face is not part. When listening to radio, using the phone or while reading, the face of the other person or the writer is never seen, yet communication takes place. So, if anyone wants to hate or stop the niqab, let them start with the radio, books and phones first.

It has been confirmed from reactions and remarks of many people that these violations are due to mere hatred for the religion and the commandments. They ask where it is found to wear the hijab/niqab. They call those who are strict with it, extremists and fanatics.
God has commanded in Quran chapter 33 verse 59
“O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garment over their persons. That is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
In the Arabic text of the revelation, the word JALABIIB (plural of Jilbab) has been used by the Almighty, which means an outer garment; a long gown COVERING THE WHOLE BODY. So, if some women have surrendered to be believing women and have obeyed the Creator, why hate them for that? Why deny them from obeying the Creator? Why call them extremists? Why hate God’s commandment? Why the deliberate sinning?

It’s high time we learned tolerance. It’s time we are tolerated as we tolerate others. In so many other countries, Muslim ladies especially are allowed to wear their hijab/niqab. Air hostesses and policewomen who have the hijab as part of their uniforms if they’re Muslims, A niqab wearing pilot, doctors who wear their hijab and niqab, surgeons have the niqab designed with their scrubs, and many more.

 

This letter will not be concluded without stating our demands to allow us enjoy the rights to freedom that we have as Nigerians.

1. Muslims must, on no account, be oppressed, victimized, assaulted or prohibited from portraying their faith. This includes allowing the Muslims to observe their prayers at their times (and not fixing exams at the times of Jumat, et al), as this is another right that is being denied. Muslim students who study in non-Muslim schools must not be forcefully reverted.
2. In schools (including higher institutions), Muslim females must not be prohibited from wearing their hijab or niqab if they choose to wear them, and the men be left to keep their beards. No one is being disturbed by their dressing or appearance.

The Nuns are free to wear their robes anywhere, why should Muslimahs be disturbed for theirs? A Christian man or a man who is not conscious of any religion can keep beards for fashion sake and health benefits, why can’t others keep theirs to please their Creator?

3. In medical schools and hospitals, Muslimahs who choose to wear their hijab or niqab should enjoy their freedom too. The dressing has no negative impact on their efficiency. If they can go to hospitals as patients, why can’t they be students and workers?
If the scrubs worn are full body covers, masks, and caps are worn by the surgeons (and nurses), why can’t the Muslim women (nurses and doctors; workers and students) be allowed to wear their niqab?
The law school is no exception. Having a uniform doesn’t mean the hijab cannot be worn, if the color is not violated. The black and white is still maintained.
4. In places of work, private or government owned, Muslimahs should enjoy their freedom as well. The attire or appearance does not negatively affect their efficiency, except for the inbuilt lazy ones and anyone who fails to discharge their responsibilities well should be reprimanded reasonably and not attached to the religion.
5. At the immigration offices, and other places where registration is to be done, it must not be required that the ears be shown while taking passports. The face, as defined and described, never includes the ears. The FRONT of the human head is called the face. It includes several distinct areas, of which the main features are:

THE FOREHEAD, comprising the skin beneath the hairline, BODERED laterally by the temples and inferiorly by eyebrows and ears.
THE EYES sitting in the orbit and protected by eyelids, and eyelashes.
The distinctive human NOSE SHAPE, nostrils, and nasal septum.
THE CHEEKS covering the maxilla and mandibula (or jaw), the EXTREMITY of which is the CHIN.
THE MOUTH, with the upper lip divided by the philtrum, sometimes reveals the teeth.

The face is the front of the head. The ears are on the sides, after the hairline border.
6. In all schools, institutions and professions that require uniforms, without being bias, we should be allowed to design the uniforms for the hijab/niqab wearing Muslim females, which will definitely conform with the works.

 

We do not need to wonder how to recognize the women in niqab. Familiarity is a sure thing, except that some people are normally not gifted in recognition of even the voice. However, as for facial recognition or in case of fear of impersonation, those who are in authority can be unveiled for to confirm identification. There must however be means of identification – ID cards of the institution or any government approved means. It should however be noted that by a female, and in private, should the identity verification be done. Otherwise, where there are no females around, a male may verify, but still in private.

There definitely can never be any problem when there is mutual understanding. Let us all be law abiding citizens and tolerate one another. If some people can hate, they can definitely love more.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
– Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom.

 

HAMEEDAH O. ADENUGA
15/12/2017.

Jerusalem: Israeli Forces Kill Legless Palestinian During Protest

0

Israeli forces have seen to the end of a legless man from Palestine after firstly rendering him lame for life when he lost his legs during a missile attack on Gaza.

Several Pakistanis had thronged the Gaza border linking Palestine to Israel to announce their dissatisfaction with the decision made by American President, Donald Trump who announced his recognition of Jerusalem, a supposed Palestinian city as the capital of Israel. The announcement sparked furious reactions from every part of the world with a UN Envoy tagging it a “kiss of death” while many Arab leaders have also weighed in with their discontentment with the flagrant decision made by the controversial American President. Russia and the European Union have also blamed the reasoning behind the decision with Palestinians ready to give their all to make a difference to the flammable call.

Palestinians had flooded the border hoping to get a respite and it was in the course of their struggle that the Israeli forces shot a man they had rendered legless a few years ago, also during a protest.

Abu Thuraya lost his legs during protest and never stopped till he was killed by the Israeli forces.

Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, who had lost both legs during a protest was killed alongside four other protesters and was placed in an ambulance before being taken to the hospital. There were images of other protesters carrying his dead body on their shoulders as they battled for their future.

The Israeli Military said over 3500 Palestinians had invaded the border between Israel and Palestine in Gaza. According to the Daily Mirror, there were also 150 people injured during the protests as the Palestinians hurled rocks at the Israeli Forces while they returned with gun shots.

Hamas, an Islamic group who have shown a resolve to never unite with Israel had launched an attack which was seized by the Israeli Military before the Israeli forces retaliated.

Wheelchair-bound Abu Thuraya was known for always being at the forefront of protests before being killed in a death that asks questions over the position of the U.N in its quest to end abuse of human rights.

Jerusalem was a city annexed by Israel to Palestine after the 1967 Jordan war. The city inhabits people of different faiths as Muslims, Christians and other believers are found there. Palestine had set plans in motion to name Jerusalem  as the capital of a future Palestinian State before Donald Trump did what the rest of the world considers as extreme, myopic and needless.

 

Source: Aledeh.com

FAVORITES

en_USEnglish