Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sheriff 05

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
chit-chat / Re: LATEST, HOTTEST GOSSIP ABOUT K-MEMBERS!!
« on: March 06, 2008, 01:37:35 PM »
Alanguro, Dan Borno, Tussuna kanuri kuranginyi .. har wa kasudu ro chikam....  ;D...

17
chit-chat / Re: Forum Avatars
« on: March 06, 2008, 01:34:26 PM »
woah!!! have just read through this thread (for the first time).... very interesting, and funny.. imagination and creativity is wonderful...

18
Islam / Re: Value of a Woman in Islam
« on: March 05, 2008, 06:22:34 PM »
Fantastic Amira, very beautiful and poetic, I hope you dont mind me modifying it and using it?...  ;D ;D ;D

19
Islam / Re: Ruling on a Muslim entering a church
« on: March 01, 2008, 11:38:05 PM »
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?

20
General Board / Re: HABA JANAR - LET IT GO MANA
« on: February 26, 2008, 06:17:39 PM »
President Yar'adua, Allah ya taya riko

21
General Board / Re: CIGIYAR MUHSIN..
« on: February 20, 2008, 07:49:46 PM »
Musty na abakaliki ne?

22
Cekenah, I agree with waziri, your assertions also warrants an apology and (as I said to Muhsin), I sincerely hope you did not mean what you said ... well done Muhsin, true Men accept their Mistake, but only brave one's apologise as well... Masha'Allah..

23
Borno-Yobe-Adamawa / Re: FIRE TRAGEDY IN MAIDUGURI
« on: February 14, 2008, 11:25:21 PM »
Subhanallah, that's seriously bad news.. I saw the hospital, wallahi and I thought it was a very good project..


24
Borno-Yobe-Adamawa / Re: Education in Yobe State
« on: February 14, 2008, 08:47:56 AM »
Malam Muda, we have no "office", we are simply concerned individuals. We came up with the idea and decided to find out more before formalising it into a written policy, hence my post. We are also in strategic discussion with interested international partners, but simply about the overall "concept" we wish to explore. The strategy is scalable and is a principled approach, transferrable from one state, region, or nation to the other, but taylored and implemented based on the specific needs of the community, so its by no means exclusive to Yobe, Nigeria or even Africa. Being a citizen of Yobe, I am merely attempting to make it the first beneficiary, hence my request for information. it is nothing formal, and not a government initiative. It is still in its infacny and requires a lot of discussion and negotiation with quite a few potential stakeholders and could in all honesty, most likely never happen. But what would we be, if we simply didnt try?

25
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.

26
General Board / Re: NO SUBJECT MATTER
« on: February 13, 2008, 12:02:28 AM »
Goggonnaka I have never seen that one ... "Dont steal, government hates competition".. this is definately the best... ;D ;D ;D ... I cant stop laughing.. top!!!

27
General Board / Re: HORRORS OF REMOVING 'IMMUNITY CLAUSE'
« on: February 09, 2008, 09:14:13 AM »
Alanguro, salam alaikum, na ji shuru, does silence mean consent?... :) :)

28
General Board / Re: HORRORS OF REMOVING 'IMMUNITY CLAUSE'
« on: February 04, 2008, 11:41:59 PM »
Sorry Alanguro, but you have returned me to my camp, and I disagree with your coment above, because fundamentally the two issues of the “immunity clause” and the ability to “impeach” are completely different issues, governed by completely different laws and clauses within our constitution.

The immunity clause does not protect the leader from impeachment AT ALL, rather it protects him from legal and or criminal prosecution. This legal protection provided by the immunity clause, is not a requirement at all for impeachment. The two laws are aimed at two different tiers of government. The immunity clause prevents the judiciary from sanctioning the person of the governor or president (and not his office, as the law allows the government to be sued); while the impeachment issue, governed by other clauses, is for the legislative arm of government, which is empowered by the constitution to be able to deal with executive excesses. The latter, (impeachment clauses) are clear enough and are not under review. Their ineffectiveness is not a constitutional limitation but a simple lack of political will to carry it out. The constitution is quite thorough in that area in that the provision for impeachments are quite magnanimous, if only the members of parliament are willing to carry it out. Hence for its failure, don’t blame the law, blame the law makers, pure and simple.

For the second issue, i.e. the immunity clause, as I said, covers a completely different arm of government and revolves around different issues for which legal involvement is required. Please, allow yourself to follow my logic here.

The logic is this: we both accept the benefit the clause provides, yet we still acknowledge its limitations. But if you think deeply, the main (and arguably, the only) crime for which we seek to prosecute our leaders after office, is corruption, is that not so? Hence my logic is, solve the problem by attacking it from a different direction. Rather than repeal the law all together, provide amendments to specifically target the crime. That way you have the best of both worlds, hence my suggestion.

I agree with you that the office of the auditor general exists, but again you fail to see the logic. The office at the moment remains a government subsidiary, controlled by the executive and hence exposed to the exact same executive manipulation, and the corrupt tendencies we are crying against. Also, while the audit could be done via a restructuring the existing auditor general's office and repositioning it with a new mandate under a new set of constitutional guidelines to perform their tasks, I strongly believe that it will be fundamentally wrong for any government to in effect "audit itself". How transparent is that? It will ineffect be like Ribadu probing obasanjo while Obasanjo was in power? is there any wonder he was found "clean"?  What we want is a “constitutionally empowered”, body, under the auspices of the only neutral professional tier of government we still trust, the judiciary. Hence my proposal for an independent body to call for professional prequalified, internationally certified, auditors to provide these services in an internationally certified manner, providing the audits with the credibility it needs, so it can boost governance and improve the quality of accountability. 

A constitutional provision will give it the required authority to regulate the affairs of everyone. That is what is lacking at the moment, Accountability, pure and simple. It “in theory” will be similar to the constitutional power given to Hamman Tukur in the revenue allocation and fiscal commission that had allowed him to do his work in defiance of Obasanjo and his cronies, so many times, and in a very impressive fashion. The punishments suggested via jail sentences and financial penalties, along with yearly deadlines, provide absolute minimum benchmarks from which judges can give sentences, serving as a deterrent to potential law breakers. In suggesting this Dan Borno, I am attempting to look at the wider picture, and a potential way to provide the best of both worlds, ie protection to concentrate on the task at hand, and accountability to fight corruption.

29
General Board / Re: HORRORS OF REMOVING 'IMMUNITY CLAUSE'
« on: February 03, 2008, 11:31:13 AM »
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...  ;D ;D) 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?

30
Islam / Re: Significance of Nikkah
« on: January 13, 2008, 11:03:08 AM »
As salam alaikum,
Well I am not a religious authority in any sense, so I will wait for Bamalli to give a better response. However, Hajia Ummita since as you explained, Nikkah is used to metaphorically describe the coming together of souls on a promise (and which as you explain opens to potentially new creation), in the context of human social behaviour, isnt that exactly what a marriage is? Nikkah indeed (as you rightly pointed out), means a union based on commitment, (that is, in its literal sense). But referring to human social interaction, most often when cited in the Quran and the hadith, (in its contextual sense now) it is used to refer to Marriage. It is, as I understand it, a life long description of the pre-wedding and the post wedding life which both parties share, including the commitments binding them. Allahu A'alam.

Secondly, the hadith above points to "a" signifigance of marriage not "the" significance. It is one among many contained in other sayings of the Rasul (S.A.W) as well as those of eminent Sahabah and eminent scholars. Yes i do understand your position, but you should view it as a part of a larger bowl of collective benefts, captured in numerous other sources.

I think that's why the learned scholars are weary of giving overarching fatwa's based on single hadiths, and why most (sincere ones anyway) will be open to change their stance on issues as they learn more and consult broader sources, should any evidence emerge to show they were wrong (as reflected in the sayings of Imam Malik & Imam Ahmad bn Hambal). They understand that hardly does a single hadith contain everything, as these sayings refer to sayings and/or actions built around contextual occurences. Hence it may not give a complete picture, considering contexts do differ... Forgive me, as I seem to digress. But all I'm saying is, it is one significance among many.. and (with specific reference to the hadith quoted), it reflected an understanding of the natural sexual urges of youth, and hence may have been given as a solution to protect him from that. Again Allahu A'alam

Lastly, forgive me, but could you please reconfirm the quranic verse you cited here? I checked it out and it was referring to a prohibition of marriage of our fathers wives. is that the one you were referring to?

Salam

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Powered by EzPortal