KanoOnline Online Forum

woah!!! have just read through this thread (for the first time).... very interesting, and funny.. imagination and creativity is wonderful...

Does the ruling extend to going there to study their architectural, structural and technical designs? as well as aesthetic detailings?.. Considering this has nothing to do with religion or any festivities, does the fatwa prohibit this? I ask because being partly an Architect (or previously being one anyway), I have been for a time now drawn strongly to grand historical gothic style buildings, along with the cultural, economical and political contexts sorrounding their conception and eventual construction. Most of them happen to be Palaces, Museums, Churches and Cathedrals. I have seen and studied a few and plan to do more over time, but this has made me uneasy. So abeg Jama'a, any answers?

Musty na abakaliki ne?

Subhanallah, that's seriously bad news.. I saw the hospital, wallahi and I thought it was a very good project..

Despite our opposition to the attitudes of the Isreali's against our palestinian brethren, I think its completely wrong to support Hitler or any mass murderer under any circumstance at all, and I sincerely hope that Malam Muhsin you didnt mean what you said. Regardless of what Hitler thought of us (Africans, about whom he remarked "let the animals graze"), we dont support him, simply because he was a  transgressor and as Muslims, a life is sacred regardless of who's life it is..

When people are killed around the world, regardless of where they stand, as a Muslim, you feel sad. If they were Muslims, you feel sad to have lost a brother, If they were not Muslims, you feel sad for what might have been, i.e. a lost opportunity to give them the sweetness of faith and for them to taste what it is we greatly enjoy, and hence gain eternal bliss. From the mindset of those who truly understand the beauty of Islam, Wars are fought as an inevitability, not as a craving. We never yearn to dominate, or to kill, or to fight for the fun of it or to amass power and rule over a dominion. If we did that, then what makes us any different from the imperialist powers we condemn?  As Muslims, our yearnings are first and foremost to practice our religion in tranquility, to advocate fairness, truth and justice everywhere and to give to others the beautiful teachings we hold dear. We fight merely to defend this, and as the prophet once remarked to his companions when standing in ranks and preparing for a crucial battle, "Never yearn to meet your enemies on the field of battle, but if you do, then do not turn back and remember, in the shade of the sword lies paradise" (aw kama Qala rasulullah).

About Obama's comments, I have to say, I sincerely doubt the authenticity of those remarks, not because I am a supporter, (Frankly May the best man or woman win), but because it would be tantamount to political suicide and every politician with an iota of political flair knows it. As a rule in politics, you appeal to your core supporters and never alienate anyone, because the difference between winning and loosing, could be just one vote, hence every vote counts. Please confirm you sources, and be very wary of such "claims". It is as authentic as the first letter that said he was a Muslim, it's fairly obvious, that they're both fake.

I cant say I know why America cares for Isreal, but I will be the first to point out that in theory that is not a wrong thing to do, after all, we all have people and countries we care about more than others, (and as some of my very good friends have similarly argued, why do we care for Palestinians?). It however becomes wrong when the love for a certain beloved blinds you from being fair and just to all others, and hence upholding a "universal truth" and implementing a "golden mean". What we find fault in, and believe makes America wrong, is that it lets its allegiances to a certain country deviates it from establishing truth and fairness in its dealing with others, allowing its loved one, i.e. Isreal, to commit wrong doings against others, while it conveniently turns a blind eye and hence allows it to live "above the law" (as its floundering of international laws and countless legitimate UN resolutions attests to). That is America's crime, and why it builds enemies for itself. As a parent, you surely love your child, but will it be right if you turned a blind eye to your child's wrong actions? Is that love? is that fair on other children? Is that in the best interest of your child? Surely, it will make the neighbour dislike you and stop them from allowing their children play with you? Logic dictates, does it not?

Similarly, this raises a lesson for us to learn Malam Muhsin, that as Muslims, by justifying every wrong doing or crime committed by our brethren (or in the case of Hitler, any person) against Israel and its supporters, we risk becoming exactly like the nations we have grown to criticise. We should remember that as Muslims, our responsibility is to be fair and just at all times, even if it be against ourselves and those whom we love. This may in some cases, mean saying the unpalatable truth, i.e. that we are wrong and the opposition is right, and hence, giving them their due rights at all times. Hence my statement on Hitler and my similar sentiments about Milosovic and Muscilini. That was the way of the prophet and the rightly guided Khalifs (including Umar ibn Abdulaziz). If we dont act in such a fair and just manner in defining our convictions, then sadly, the difference between us and those whom we criticise, will simply be our names.

P.s. King, Just a thought, please tone down your words, and know that we are all here to discuss, learn from each other, and to find solutions to seemingly complex issues, in our region, country and in the wider world. It is in everyone's interest if we can do so, in a mature manner and not in ways that offend others. I'm sure, that you are more than capable of doing so. Thank you.

Alanguro, salam alaikum, na ji shuru, does silence mean consent?...

Assalamu alaikum,

This is a very interesting topic indeed, sadly though, constitutional issues are not my forte and I know very little about the technical details of our constitution. However, on the issue of the immunity clause, I have to say, (despite our opposing views on the legality of Mr president...  ) I agree with my kanuri brother, Dan Borno on this one. As he rightly said, the immunity clause is there to ensure the leaders concentrate on issues at hand, rather than be distracted by incessant legal challenges from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Critically though, it also protects the office of the leader from being ridiculed while that leader is in office, hence serving to re-enforce the notion of respect for elders, a norm for our society. Removing the clause could be a further source of chaos as opposition candidates will surely use it to incite societal unrest. Removing it may have been ideal in societies where people have “a lot more to do” than “feeding off” government (as is predominantly the case in most of the north).

However, I also agree with Hajia Husnaa that something is wrong with the clause as it is presently very ineffective and is being abused by all tiers of government, both the executive and the legislature, and it gives the judiciary very little to “feed on” when legal challenges against leaders are brought forth. But where we differ Hajia, is that rather than outright repealment of the law, I advocate an ammendment, which I call a "terminal audit".

A terminal audit will be a constitutional law mandating all public office holders to allow independent auditors to conduct a detailed audit of their accounts at the end of every financial year. Appointments are made by a central independent (judiciary led) governance and regulatory body, empowered by the constitution. The result of each state’s audit is disclosed publicly and submitted to the judiciary, before a constitutionally mandated date, serving as evidence and/or proof of the condition of the State’s or nation’s accounts as at the end of every fiscal year. In the last 3-6 months of every 4 year elected tenure, the judicial authority mandated with such powers, will then invite independent internationally certified auditors to conduct a comprehensive 4 year audit of the account (independent of the yearly audit conducted by each state). All audits are published for public consumption and issued to all interested parties, as independently verified statements of accounts, including the true amount dedicated to every expenditure over the last year (and 4 year term). The yearly audits will ensure that a State has the chance of reviewing itself and will allow the citizenry to cross examine each state from within, boosting accountability. (as a minor benefit, It will also provide a medium to improve education levels within such backward states where audits and judicial oversight are relatively new). The 4 year audit will then serve as an independent verifier of the yearly audits conducted, and if found to be different will serve to check abuse from the office holders, but most crucially, will prevent ineptitude, incompetence and improve the standard of the yearly audit, which I hope to be conducted by National audit firms.

Additionally, the constitution must also then include minimum jail sentences well as financial penalties to every state executive that misses the yearly deadline or is unable to provide (judicially) acceptable explanations for any discrepancies. The legislature have no role in such a law but the executive will then be forced to ensure that all expenditure from every parastatal, tier of government and institution within his jurisdiction is appropriately managed.
This suggestion is built on the assumption that while the constitution protects against prosecution from ALL criminal cases, nearly all leaders (Past and present) are typically accused of one particular recurring offence, i.e. Corruption. Hence, the law will still protect against unwarranted and unnecessary legal challenges against any leader while in power, but will provide a stern medium to ensure accountability for every office holder while in office (and beyond) and also provide a “noose” with which they could potentially hang themselves after leaving office. In theory, if implemented properly, everybody could win!!!

What do you think?