A Muslim(Salafi-Sunni-Athari), Yoruba
Joined August 2014
- Tweets40.1K
- Following1.1K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes79.1K
Pinned Tweet
To learn Arabic yourself, start with:
1. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 1
2. Madinah Arabic 1
3. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 2
4. Madinah Arabic 2
5. Madinah Arabic 3
6. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 3
7. Madinah Arabic 4
8. Arabiya Bayna Yadayk 4
If I had to start again, I'd follow this accordingly.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
This is what happens when historical ignorance is accompanied by an astonishing degree of intellectual arrogance.
First, there were no “West African countries” during the transatlantic slave trade. The region comprised kingdoms, empires, city-states and independent societies. Applying modern national identities to centuries-old history is an extraordinary display of ignorance.
Second, Europeans did not arrive in Africa as benevolent abolitionists. For centuries, they financed, institutionalised and industrialised human trafficking, supplying weapons that fuelled wars and slave raids, creating an enormous market for human captives, and codifying racial slavery into their laws. African collaborators existed, but their complicity does not absolve the European empires that sustained this monstrous commerce.
Entire African communities were devastated, populations displaced, villages destroyed and societies destabilised. Millions were deported across the Atlantic, while countless others suffered captivity, violence and death on African soil. Africa was itself a vast crime scene, not merely the departure point of enslaved people.
And perhaps the most remarkable historical fraud is how European nations have managed to present themselves as the liberators of the very people they spent centuries enslaving.
I grew up in a former French colony in Africa being taught from primary school that slavery was abolished by a Frenchman named Victor Schœlcher. It was only in 2026 ( yes this year ) that I discovered that people in former British colonies had been taught a remarkably similar story, except that their white saviour was an Englishman named William Wilberforce.
Yet long before Britain abolished slavery in its colonies in 1833, enslaved Africans in Haiti had fought a revolution, defeated European armies and proclaimed their independence in 1804. Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines were central to that struggle.
In 1816, Haitian President Alexandre Pétion supplied Simón Bolívar with weapons, ammunition and military assistance to support South America’s liberation struggles, on the condition that he advance the emancipation of enslaved people. And he went on to free more than half a dozen Latin American countries.
And what was Haiti’s reward for daring to liberate itself? Diplomatic isolation and, in 1825, a crushing indemnity of 150 million francs imposed by France, effectively forcing formerly enslaved people to compensate the descendants of their enslavers for the loss of their supposed property.
Meanwhile, Britain compensated slave owners with £20 million following abolition, while the enslaved received nothing.
Where are these stories in the European narratives of abolition? Where are Nat Turner, who led an enslaved uprising in Virginia in 1831, Queen Nzinga, who resisted Portuguese expansion and slave raiding in Central Africa, or the countless African rulers, communities and freedom fighters who resisted enslavement?
Black people fought for their freedom. They rebelled, resisted, organised, sacrificed and died for it. Their liberation was never simply a gift bestowed upon them by benevolent Europeans.
There is something profoundly tragic about descendants of enslaved Africans, born and educated in the lands of their ancestors’ enslavers, regurgitating sanitised colonial history, seemingly incapable of distinguishing historical scholarship from imperial propaganda.
The greatest triumph of colonial indoctrination is when the descendants of its victims become the most zealous defenders of its mythology.
What a pity!
Nigerian MAGA clowns be like "but did he say 'Jesus is Lord!' before beheading them"
Yes. In October 782 at Verden, after a Saxon revolt that killed Frankish officers, the Royal Frankish Annals record Charlemagne ordering the beheading of 4,500 Saxons handed over as the chief rebels. This was part of his multi-decade Saxon Wars to conquer and forcibly Christianize the pagan tribes. His Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae imposed death for refusing baptism or keeping pagan practices.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The Spanish invaders forced the Philippines Muslims to be Catholic if not will be beheaded.
The Portuguese invaders destroyed Malacca to the point even cemeteries are destroyed.
But of course, it's always Muslims, Islam or Arabs.
"MuSlImS WiLl bEhEaD YoU!"
🤡
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
This may be of interest only to me but the largest religious group to show up at the polls yesterday was no religion at all:
Exact same talking points, the claim of the Crusades being a response to Muslim expansion that happened 400years prior is a Right Wing Christian talking point.
And only braindead historical inept idiots repeat it without even making a research
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Qadr al Mushtarak: The Shared Meaning of Allah’s Names and Attributes
Allah has described Himself with names and attributes that are also used for His creation, such as life, knowledge, power, hearing, seeing, will and love. However, sharing a name or attribute does not mean that Allah and His creation are alike in their reality.
Allah's life is not like the life of His servants, His knowledge is not like their knowledge, and His hearing and seeing are not like theirs. Each possesses what is particular to him, while the general meaning of the attribute remains understood. This is the foundation of qadr mushtarak (a shared meaning). (Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/595–596; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashāʿirah, pp. 964–967).
The names and attributes are distinguished through three forms of meaning. Ishtirāk lafẓī (sharing the same wording) occurs when one word has entirely different meanings, such as ʿayn (eye), which may refer to the eye, a spring of water or gold.
Tawāṭuʾ (a shared general meaning) applies when one meaning is common to several individuals, such as the word "human" applying to Zayd and ʿAmr, although each possesses his own reality.
Tashkīk (a shared meaning that differs in degree) applies when one possesses an attribute more strongly than another, such as the light of the sun compared with the light of a lamp.
The common meaning between Allah and His creation belongs to the latter discussion of shared meanings, not to words whose meanings are entirely unrelated. (Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/592–596; Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashāʿirah, pp. 965–967).
Qadr mushtarak exists in the mind as a general understanding, not as one reality shared between Allah and His creation in the external world. The meaning of existence can be understood without the existence of Allah being identical to that of His servants.
So, knowing what hearing, seeing and life mean does not require their realities to be alike. The general meaning is understood, but each possesses his own particular attributes. (Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/581–586; Naqḍ al Taʾsīs, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/378–379).
The Errors of Treating Shared Meaning as Just A Commonality In The Wording
The majority of scholars, including the Ashʿarīs, affirmed that Allah's names and attributes have true meanings, even when the same names are used for His creation. However, Abū al ʿAbbās al Nāshiʾ said that these names were used in their true sense for Allah and metaphorically for His creation, while others reversed this position.
The Jahmiyyah, Qarāmiṭah and Bāṭiniyyah were extremein their negation of Allah's names and attributes. If the names were shared in wording alone, describing Allah as living or knowing would provide no understanding of His attributes, just as unfamiliar words whose meanings are unknown provide no understanding. This would amount to ilḥād (deviation) concerning Allah's names. (al Jawāb al Ṣaḥīḥ, Ibn Taymiyyah, 3/150; Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 3/586; Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al ʿAql wa al Naql, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/325–326).
Those who denied the common meaning relied upon two doubts. The first was tashbīh, believing that affirming existence, life or knowledge for both would require them to be alike. The second was tarkīb (composition), believing that they would possess one common existence together with something particular to each.
Both arguments depend upon believing the general meaning understood in the mind as though it were a single reality existing outside the mind.
However, Allah has His own existence, and each created being has its own existence. Nothing in the external world is jointly possessed by them as one identical reality. (Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/581–585).
Al Rāzī (d. 606AH), al Āmidī (d. 631AH) and al Shahrastānī (d. 548AH) fell into errors concerning kulliyyāt (universal meanings), the belief that a universal meaning could exist in the external world as part of particular things. This confused what exists in the mind with what exists in reality.
Al Āmidī affirmed the common universal outside the mind in Daqāʾiq al Ḥaqāʾiq, but denied it in Iḥkām al Aḥkām, while al Rāzī also rejected it in al Mulakhkhaṣ. Their contradictory statements arose from failing to distinguish the general meaning from its particular existence. (Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al ʿAql wa al Naql, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/108–126; Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/588–592).
The Consequences for Allah's Attributes
The Ashʿarīs interpreted Allah's maḥabbah (love) as His will to bestow favour, arguing that love means the inclination of the heart towards the beloved, which is a characteristic of created beings. However, human will is also understood as the inclination of the soul towards what is desired.
Therefore, the same reasoning used to interpret love would also require them to interpret will. Whatever distinction they make between Allah's will and the will of His servants must also be applied to His love and the love of His servants. (Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashāʿirah, p. 972).
Allah's names and attributes are of different kinds. Some belong exclusively to Him, such as al Ilāh (the One worthy of worship) and Rabb al ʿĀlamīn (Lord of the worlds). Others, such as life, knowledge and power, may also describe created beings, although the reality of each differs according to the one possessing it.
The general meaning of these attributes is a quality of perfection, while their particular reality belongs to the one described. They do not exist independently of the one possessing them. Allah's attributes therefore subsist in Him, just as the attributes of created beings subsist in them, without requiring any likeness between their realities. (Manhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/596–598; al Jawāb al Ṣaḥīḥ, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/323).
This is understood through the principle that what is said concerning Allah's attributes follows what is said concerning His essence. Just as affirming Allah's existence does not require knowing the kayfiyyah affirming His attributes does not require knowing their manner.
The attributes are affirmed according to their meanings without takyīf, tamthīl, taḥrīf or taʿṭīl.
To deny every common meaning between Allah and His creation would ultimately lead to denying Allah's existence, since even the meaning of existence would no longer be understood. (al Tadmuriyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, pp. 43–46; Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/114).
The Examples of Paradise and the Soul
The difference between a shared meaning and its particular reality can be understood through the descriptions of Paradise. Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنه said, "There is nothing in this world of what is in Paradise except the names." (Jami al Bayan, al Tabari, 1/391, report 534, under al Baqarah 25 quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tab…)
Paradise contains food, drink, clothing, gold, silver and other things whose names are known in this world, yet their true realities are different.
The meanings of these descriptions are understood without requiring the things described to be identical. If such differences exist between created things, then the difference between the Creator and His creation is far greater. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/208; al Tadmuriyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, pp. 46–50).
The rūḥ (spirit) is another example. It is described as living, knowing, hearing, seeing, ascending and descending, although its reality and the manner of these attributes are not known through direct observation. The absence of this knowledge does not prevent the meanings from being understood.
If the attributes of a created soul can be affirmed without knowing their particular manner or likening them to the attributes of other created beings, then Allah is far more deserving of having His attributes affirmed without such likeness. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/115–116; al Tadmuriyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 50).
The same principle applies to the descriptions of Allah's attributes and the descriptions of the Hereafter. The mutakallimūn who affirmed Paradise and the Fire while interpreting Allah's attributes differently contradicted themselves, since both concern realities whose meanings can be understood without knowing their exact nature.
The Malāḥidah (heretics) denied both, while Ahlus Sunnah affirmed both according to the texts.
So, the common meaning of an attribute does not require resemblance in its reality, nor does the absence of knowledge concerning its manner justify denying what Allah has affirmed for Himself. (al Tadmuriyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, pp. 46–50; Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 5/348; Minhāj al Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/157–159).
Mawqif Ibn Taymiyyah min al Ashāʿirah, Dr. ʿAbd al Raḥmān ibn Ṣāliḥ al Maḥmūd, pp. 964–978.
To know how braindead these Nigerian MAGAs are, they repeat the exact same talking points of their low IQ counterpart in the US.
You'd find them saying Muslims have taken over the UK and Europe, no self awareness whatsoever 😹
Nigerian c00n thinks he's part of the big boys because he's "Christian"😭
If the West fight Muslims today, you as a black subsaharan would be fought as well
This quoted post is unavailable.
Nigerian Christians think the history of Christianity started in the 19th century after colonialism 😹
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Over 800 comments, most of which are filled with insults against the Prophet ﷺ, yet she allows the discussion to continue.
But on this post, which has over 100 comments, most of which consist of people making inkār against her, she restricts who is actually allowed to comment.
My intention has always been to invite people to Islam. I understand that certain moments can be taken out of context or come across differently than intended. I always strive to conduct myself with modesty, dignity, and Islamic etiquette.
Some of the comments I’ve seen from so-called Muslim men have been disgusting, vile, and completely unacceptable. It is perfectly fine to voice disagreement without resorting to disrespecting me or my loved ones. I sincerely hope this is not how you would choose to advise your Muslim sisters going forward.
In the context of the conversation, it was evident that I was referring to the topic of debating and did not intend anything other than such.
May Allah guide us all and keep our intentions sincere.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
While modern scholars debate whether philosophers who rationalised slavery and racial hierarchies, like David Hume, were racist or just ignorant,
His contemporaries who actually visited Africa observed that many West Africans were more literate than their European peers.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Al Rāzī's Argument From Change and Its Refutation From Ibn Taymiyyah
When Ibrāhīm عليه السلام saw a celestial body set, he said: "When it set, he said, 'I do not love those that set.'" (al Anʿām: 76)
Al Rāzī argues that al afūl (setting) means al taghayyur (change). Since Ibrāhīm عليه السلام rejected what sets, this supposedly proves that anything subject to change cannot be Allah.
The First Refutation: Setting Does Not Mean Change
The first problem is that there is no proof that afūl (setting) means taghayyur (change). This meaning has only been asserted, without any evidence establishing that the two words mean the same thing.
Therefore, the argument cannot be established by assuming the very meaning that needs to be proven. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/284).
The Second Refutation: The Meaning of Setting in the Arabic Language
The claim contradicts the established meaning of al afūl (setting) among the scholars of the Arabic language and Tafsīr.
The word means al ghaybūbah (disappearing from sight). The sun is described here as setting when it disappears, not whenever it goes through a change.
For example, if the sun changes colour while remaining visible, it is not said to have set. Likewise, the moon is not described as having set whenever it moves across the sky.
Even when the moon becomes hidden by clouds, or the sun is obscured during an eclipse, these circumstances do not establish the meaning of setting intended in the verse.
The meaning of the word is disappearance from sight, not every occurrence of change. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/284–285).
The Third Refutation: Ibrāhīm عليه السلام Did Not Reject the Celestial Bodies When They Moved!!
The story of Ibrāhīm عليه السلام contains more evidence against interpreting setting as change.
When he saw the star, it was already moving towards the place where it would set. But he did not describe it as having set while it was moving. He only described it as setting after it disappeared.
The same applies to the moon and the sun. Both were moving before they disappeared, yet neither was described as having set until its actual setting.
If movement itself constituted afūl (setting), then the celestial bodies would already have been setting while they remained visible. This is contrary to the sequence established in the Qur'an. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/285).
The Fourth Refutation: Movement and Change Are Not Identical to Setting!
Afūl (setting), ḥarakah (movement), and taghayyur (change) do not have the same meaning.
Something may change without setting, and something may move without disappearing from sight.
Even the meaning of movement differs according to its usage. It may refer to movement from one place to another, growth in plants, or changes connected with love, pleasure, anger and recollection.
Likewise, change can refer to different kinds of occurrences. It cannot be assumed that everything described as changing undergoes the particular kind of change meant by another expression.
So, using the word "change" does not establish the argument. If it refers to something that is agreed to be impossible for Allah, there is no disagreement concerning that particular matter. However, if it refers to the very matter being disputed, its impossibility must first be proven. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/285–286).
The Fifth Refutation: Setting Cannot Mean the Possibility of Nonexistence
Ibn Sīnā (d. 428AH), interpreted afūl (setting) as imkān (its existence is not necessary, this is Ibn Sina's definition of the term in al Ilāhiyyāt).
According to him, everything other than Allah is subject to the possibility of ceasing to exist. Therefore, every created thing would always possess the characteristic of setting, whether visible or hidden.
However, this contradicts the Qur'an.
Ibrāhīm عليه السلام first saw the celestial body appear. Only after it set did he say, "I do not love those that set."
If setting meant the possibility of nonexistence, then the star, moon and sun would have possessed that description even before their setting. There would be no reason to connect his statement specifically to the moment when they disappeared.
The Qur'an distinguishes between their appearance and their setting. The argument therefore cannot be based upon a meaning that removes this distinction. (Majmūʿ al Fatāwā, Ibn Taymiyyah, 13/286–287).
Majmūʿ Fatāwā, compiled by ibn Qāsim, 13/284–287
They did repeatedly. The Qur’ān uses originated and created interchangeably and there isn’t a linguist on Earth who said if the agent is uncreated, the originations within it are uncreated. That’s purely garbage you pretend is the apparent of revelation.
Sūrat al-Anʿām 6:76
فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَا أُحِبُّ الْآفِلِينَ
"When it set, he said: 'I do not love those that set.'"
In Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, commenting on this verse, al-Rāzī writes:
وأما الأوساط فإنهم يفهمون من الأفول مطلق الحركة، فكل متحرك محدث، وكل محدث فهو محتاج إلى القديم القادر.
“As for those of intermediate understanding, they understand from setting motion in general. Everything that moves is originated, and everything originated is dependent upon the Eternal, Powerful One."
He then explicitly extends the verse's implications to the impossibility of spatial descent and ascent attributed to Allah:
وأيضاً يمتنع أن يكون تعالى ينزل من العرش إلى السماء تارة ويصعد من السماء إلى العرش أخرى، وإلا لحصل معنى الأفول.
LLikewise, it is impossible that He, exalted is He, should descend from the Throne to the heaven at one time and ascend from the heaven to the Throne at another; otherwise, the meaning of setting would occur."
Al-Rāzī also argues that the verse excludes Allah being a locus for originated attributes:
الحكم الثاني هذه الآية تدل على أنه تعالى ليس محلاً للصفات المحدثة كما تقوله الكرامية، وإلا لكان متغيراً.
"The second ruling: This verse indicates that He, exalted is He, is not a locus for originated attributes, as the Karrāmiyyah maintain; otherwise, He would be subject to change."
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Dutch privateers convert to Islam and start doing pirate raids while identifying as Turkish without the knowledge of the Ottomans. After they raid Ireland their captives also convert to Islam out of a shared hatred of the British. They then raid and destroy Baltimore MD together.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
That's because he never did "confirm" Jesus and not one Christian author cites Jospehus' passage until the 4th century AD, including Origen, who said he "CAN'T BELIEVE JOSPEHUS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT JESUS" around 220 AD.
It was forged by later Christians like Eusebius.
