A Muslim(Salafi-Sunni-Athari), Yoruba
Joined August 2014
- Tweets40.2K
- Following1.1K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes79.2K
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
It seems that IP believes that his own Catholic authorities are backwards?!
Pope Pius XI who was head of the Catholic Church and the first sovereign of Vatican City says about wives that: "There must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life." (Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Sections 26–29 and 74–77)
Thomas Aquinas who was considered one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Catholic theology says: "Woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates." (Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, I, Question 92, Article 1)
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD) was an early Church Father, Archbishop of Constantinople, and a Doctor of the Church in the Roman Catholic tradition, and he says: "The male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way" (Homily 9, John Chrysostom, commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11–15)
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), who was a Church Father of the Latin Church and a Doctor of the Church says: "It is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men..." (De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Augustine, 1.10)
In the Catholic Encyclopedia it states: "The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body AND SOUL." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Augustin Rössler and William Fanning, Volume 15)
Side Note: In the Catholic Encylopedia the soul is defined as "The ultimate internal principle by which we THINK, feel, and will."
So this in meaning is quite similar to the Hadith that Christians often use to attack Muslim women of them having a reduction in their intellect, yet again another example of how Christians attacking Islam never works out for them. (Sahih Al Bukhari 304)
We can conclude from this that many Church Fathers, and popes taught that men and women were not equal. Thomas Aquinas believed women were naturally subordinate to men because men possessed greater rational discretion.
John Chrysostom says that men have higher honour and authority than women. Augustine believed male authority over women was part of the natural order.
Pope Leo believes that husbands should lead their families and wives should obey them, while Pope Pius admits there are inequalities within marriage.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says women are inferior to men, physically AND psychologically.
Christians in this day and age portray themselves to be liberals, meanwhile when you open the Bible or the words of the Church Fathers, and Popes, we see the opposite of what they preach. Deceptive just like how Paul was when he would encountered the Jews.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:20 says: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."
Most if not all, the arguments that Christians will make towards us, can be explained on our end, and flipped upon them.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
For centuries, both ancient Greek logicians and medieval Muslim theologians split language into two distinct categories: Literal and Metaphorical.
If you said "the lion entered the room" to describe a brave warrior, they claimed you were using a "metaphor" because the literal definition of a lion is a four-legged animal.
In Kitab al-Iman and Majmu' al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah completely revolutionized linguistics by declaring that the abstract split between literal and metaphorical language is a complete myth.
He argued that words do not have a fixed, isolated "literal" definition in a vacuum.
Instead, meaning is strictly defined by immediate context and communal usage.
If a community uses the word "lion" to mean a warrior, that is its true meaning in that context.
In Western academia, it wasn't until the 20th century that the famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein shook the world with his theory of "Language Games", arguing that meaning is defined entirely by its use in context.
Ibn Taymiyyah developed this advanced, usage-based semantic framework 600 years prior.
Link: pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles…
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Ibn Taymiyyah is amazing, modern computer scientists (like John Sowa) have noted that Ibn Taymiyyah’s aggressive critique of strict Aristotelian logic, where he favored situational analogy (Qiyas al-Tamthil) and learning incrementally from specific data points, uncannily models the exact way Modern Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning algorithms operate today. Instead of following rigid rules, they learn patterns dynamically from historical data.
The links to the resources:
share.google/GYlcjkEJin9ac00…
share.google/SkWr59jeLMHkT14…
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!
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:
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.
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.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Some sincere advice to myself and my brothers and sisters:
When engaging in debates with people from other sects or religions online, I have witnessed some truly abhorrent and repulsive arguments being made, statements that should make the stomach of every believer churn upon hearing them.
My advice, first and foremost to myself, is that before making such arguments, sincerely ask yourself:
Would I be comfortable standing before Allah (ﷻ) on the Day of Judgement, repeating these very words and attempting to justify why I uttered them?
Would I be content to have these statements recorded among my deeds?
Not every argument that silences an opponent is an argument that pleases Allah (ﷻ).
Winning an argument is worthless if, in doing so, we incur the displeasure of Allah (ﷻ).
May Allah (ﷻ) forgive us for our shortcomings, purify our intentions, guard our tongues, and grant us sincerity and wisdom when speaking about His religion. Amin.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The Destroyer of Paganism, Imam Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab al-Hanbali, said:
❝As for our madhhab, it is the madhhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah. We do not object to those who follow the four schools of jurisprudence, provided that they do not contradict an explicit text from the Book and the Sunnah, the consensus of the Ummah, or the position of the majority.
What is intended is to clarify the religion upon which we stand: that we worship Allah alone, without associating any partners with Him in worship, by abandoning all forms of shirk and by following the Messenger ﷺ in doing so. We also renounce all innovations.❞
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
This is the fundamental problem with Christianity.
For Christians, God has a rival, Satan.
Whereas in Islām there is no equal to God, Satan is a rival to man.
Two different categories altogether.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
What actually happened in the Borno High Court judgment involving Lami Samuel Dawa is very different from the narrative Arise TV and some of its anti-Sharia propagandists have been pushing.
I shared the certified true copy of the judgment so people can read it themselves. The victim was a 16-year-old minor. The court found, on the evidence (including the first defendant’s own admissions), that she enticed the girl away from her parents’ custody, removed her, took her to Jos, and facilitated her discontinuation from school and placement in a Bible school; all without the parents’ knowledge or consent. In fact, it is in evidence that the convict gave a phone and sim to the minor and when she realized that her parents were already looking for her, she asked her to stop at Bauchi instead of Jos. Why not ask her to come back to Borno? Who gave her money to travel? Her parents? The convict? If this is not abduction, I wonder what this one is. The above is what the conviction rests on. The other defendants were discharged for lack of credible evidence. Sentences of 14, 14 and 10 years were ordered to run concurrently.
As I explained earlier, this case has no root in Shariah. It was tried in the High Court of Borno State under the Penal Code Laws of Borno State 2023 and the Borno State Child Protection Law 2021, ordinary state laws on child abduction, removal from lawful custody, and related offences. No Shariah Court had jurisdiction over it. No non-Muslim was tried under Shariah. The charges and the reasoning come from the same child-protection framework that exists under the Child Rights Act and similar laws across Nigeria, not from Islamic law. Yet some people rushed to attack Islam and Shariah as if this were a Shariah matter.
Sharing the actual judgment has already put the sensational version to shame. Anyone can now see the charges, the evidence, the findings, and the reasoning. It is no longer possible to reduce this to “a Christian woman was jailed for simply sharing her faith with an adult who converted willingly,” or to claim it was a Shariah trial. It is also important to state that the convict has right of appeal even upto the Supreme Court. So the matter is not completely closed.
This is why verification matters before anything is shared publicly. Imagine if the certified judgment had not been in circulation. The false narrative would have continued unchallenged, further inflaming an already sensitive environment. The danger of such false narratives to our peace and to the integrity of the legal system is enormous.
People should not jump on trends without the facts.
Media houses have a responsibility to report accurately, especially on matters that touch religion, child protection, and court decisions. When they fail, the cost is paid by ordinary Nigerians who want peace and a functioning justice system.
Enough of the propaganda.
Enough of the anti-Shariah narratives.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
Here are the facts regarding the deliberate sensationalism pushed by Arise News and online propagandists.
1) The judgment was delivered by Hon. Justice A. B. Kumalia at the Borno State High Court in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CR/154/2025 on May 5, 2026.
2) Liyatu Samuel Dawa was convicted under Section 210 of the Borno State Penal Code strictly for "depriving a parent the lawful custody of his child."
3) The victim is a MINOR, not an adult contrary to what is being peddled around.
4) The court established the victim was a minor who was lured away from her parents and removed from school, completely destroying the "consenting adult woman" media lie.
5) In the Allocutus admission, as seen in the Certified True Copy attached, Dawa herself pleaded for leniency by explicitly referring to the minor as a "victim" whom she "did not intend to cheat" and "only advised."
6) The Irrelevance of Consent as a defense. Even if the minor allegedly "confessed" or agreed to the conversion, a child cannot legally consent to abduction away from her lawful guardians.
The deceitful attempt by Arise to replace a vulnerable minor with an independent adult is a calculated media strategy to transform a straightforward child abduction conviction into a fabricated story of religious persecution.
We rely on the Certified True Copy of the court judgment, not manufactured internet outrage.
Let’s stick to the facts.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The recent discussions about DCT reminded me of this verse.
The Jinn seemingly know what ‘good’ is and assume that God would do it, and they know what ‘evil’ is and assume God wouldn’t do it.
The Quran is intentionally careful, theologically.
The scholars (like Ibn Taymiyyah) mention that absolute, unqualified evil is never attributed to Allah. One of the examples that they use is Q 72:10. When the Jinn talk about “evil” being intended for those on earth, the doer (فاعل) of this potential evil is omitted and remains unspecified. But when the Jinn talk about “what is right” being intended for those on earth, they refer to Allah as the doer.
Jacuzi(Ajagbemokeferi)🇳🇬 retweeted
The problem with those who deny the apparent meanings of the attributes is that they are mentioned repeatedly throughout the revelation, with the various texts corroborating the same apparent meaning.
Imam Ahmad said:
❝Whoever claims that His Hand means His blessings, what will he do with His statement: {What I created with My two Hands} (38:75), with a Shaddah? (Which is used only for the two hands belonging to one's own essence)
And ‘when He created Adam, He gathered and seized [a handful]’, meaning: from the entirety of the earth.
And ‘the hearts are between two fingers.’❞
Imam Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Zubayri al-Shāfiʿi (d. 318 AH), in the chapter “The Refutation of Those Who Denied the Hand”, commented on Quran 38:75, saying:
❝...If it were as the Jahmiyyah claim, that it means the hand of niʿmah (blessing), then it would have been one hand. But in the speech of the Arabs, the form yadayya (my two hands) is used only for the two hands belonging to one's own essence❞
#ClassicalPureShafiiyyah
