Connect with us

Opinion

Education,ASUU And The Globalist Agenda (I)

Published

on

Professor Lukman Diso

 

L. I. Diso
BUK

When William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, came to Bayero University, Kano in 1999/2000, he hadn’t had the slightest idea that ASUU was ready for him. He was shocked by the level of mobilization and the ambush set to give him the terrifying welcome. The naive mindset people on such missions usually have about Africans being complacent, or having short memory and lacking a sense of history, was clearly visible in his mien. The apparent sudden realization that, contrary to his expectation, ASUU seemed to know the agenda they had been implementing in the last three decades (1970s, 1980s & 1990s), was, perhaps, what terrified him the more.

Let us take a short trip through these decades to see the picture that provides the logical context to this discussion. We shall return to Mr Saint to see who he was, what his mission in Nigeria was, how he planned to accomplish the mission, his encounter with ASUU at Bayero University, Kano, and part of his report recommendations to the World Bank.

All these may help to unravel the critical questions of why education has been systematically accorded diminishing national priority, and its role in Nigeria’s national development been consistently receding in the last 60 years. They would also help to deepen our insights into the trajectory that has shaped ASUU’s evolution and its struggles through the decades. Arising from all this may be the temptation to raise and tackle the following questions:
– Why has ASUU, of all the education stakeholders, decided to be the only consistent defender of education in Nigeria?
– Why do different Nigerian governments invariably respond to education crisis in the same pattern?
– What are the implications of government’s brazen hostility to education and the intermittent disruptions that follow as a consequence?
– What lessons could be learnt from ASUU’s consistent struggles for decades?

ASUU Strike And Posterity-Ameer Abdul Aziz

The 1960s, the decade of Nigeria’s independence, was afflicted with crippling political crisis, so turbulent that the new nation was shaken to its very roots. Whether it was an inevitable corollary of colonial vestiges that characterized such emerging nations, education, especially university education, seemed to remain relatively insulated, and as robust as it was anywhere in the world. The university teaching and learning environment, infrastructure and facilities were of high standard and comparably as good as anywhere in Europe and North America. Conditions of service were equally good and attractive. Staffing policy, in terms of staff-students ratio and staff mix, was based on best-practice standards, which produced a cosmopolitan environment and a vibrant academic culture necessary for university to thrive.
Therefore, the need for coming together as a body to represent the academics was not felt until 1965 when the Association for University Teachers (AUT) was formed. AUT was not political. It was formed to cater only for the welfare of the academics. Other variables that define university seemed to have been taken for granted.

However, in the decade of prosperity and consolidation, as the 1970s were referred to, Nigerian Universities began to slide gradually, at the beginning, as the military consolidated their firm grips on the country. Suddenly, though consciously, as if jinxed to a morgaged future, Nigeria decided to embrace a policy that marked the beginning of the cascading crisis that has bedevilled education, particularly university education, to this day, and likely, to a distant future. AUT protested to the extent of a strike to press for the Government to address the deteriorating conditions of education – teaching and learning, and welfare of staff and students.

However, the Gowon Military Government responded ruthlessly and crushed the strike. That experience served as an eye opener for the academics, and they moved to change the dynamics.

Despite the relative obscurity of the policy’s source and contents, it triggered a warning from concerned visionary and farsighted Nigerian citizens, scholars and the ASUU, which was formed in 1978 from the National Association of University Teachers (NAUT). They warned that the policy was clearly meant to serve the master and to rule over the target with all ruthlessness, to forcefully impose its contents, and ultimately emasculate the university system and education in general. However, as the decade was largely characterized by military culture, and the government, itself remotely manipulated by the same forces that had designed the policy, the warning was ignored. This explains why Obasanjo Military Regime witnessed a lot of crises in the education sector.

The NPN civilian government under Shagari (1979-1983) was a bit cautious towards university education, although there were largely unsuccessful attempts to violate university autonomy in order to implement the same surreptitious agenda. ASUU’s spirited resistance thwarted the implementation of the agenda. As the dogged struggle deepened, the first agreement that gave the academic staff the USS scale with 20% differential relative to civil service scale, was signed in 1982.

Advert

The deepening contradictions in the Shagari Civilian administration provided the excuse that brought Buhari/Idiagbon military regime (Dec.1983- Aug. 1985) in a bloodless coup D’tat. Immediately they settled the military authoritarian culture began to manifest: the repressive policy mills were hastily deployed to launch a direct assault on the University and draconian decrees arbitrarily manufactured. Under this regime, the University was subjected to a torrent of attacks including:
– Termination of university cafetaria services
– Withdrawal of subsidies on accommodation in universities
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
– Transfer of university senate’s powers to NUC through Decree 16 of 1985
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
ASUU never relented in its strong resistence to these authoritarian policies despite all the harrassment and intimidation the union faced as a consequence.
The palace coup that toppled Buhari and brought Ibrahim Bodamasi Babangida (IBB) regime (1985 – 1993) was a continuation of the military and their repressive anti-intellectual culture. IBB regime never pretended that it was there to serve interests other than Nigerians’. Shortly after settling, the regime dropped the bombshell, unveiling a World Bank/IMF-packaged economic policy with fanatical determination to implement. While the regime initiated a national debate as to whether or not to take the IMF loan, it contemptuously ignored the process and silently took the loan with all the conditionalities before the public final verdict (a clearly overwhelming rejection). Nigerians were shocked by the regime’s stunning insensitivity in this reckless disregard for the far reaching and devastating socio-economic and political implications of this action.
ASUU became the intellectual light, in the forefront leading the resistance movement, providing an incisive critique of the regime’s economic policy and presenting simplefied but thorough analysis of the policy’s implications. The duo of ASUU and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the former being an affiliate of the latter, became the most consistent and vocal critics of the policy, vigorously mobilizing the nation with the dogged insistence, to force the government to reverse its decision. As the government intentensified the commitment to the ruthless implementation of this anti-people economic policy, ASUU, NLC, NANS and other pro-people organizations turned the situation into a season of revolutionary activities: intellectually scathing public lectures and production of mobilizational publications to galvanize public opinion against government’s submission to the oppressive policy.
Sensing the massive public support and reaction and the obvious likely consequences, the IBB Regime bared its fangs, unleashing all the repressive instruments at their disposal. Barely one year into IBB’s tenure, the Regime started the full implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) as a package of the IMF conditionalities. NLC, ASUU and NANS started to organize mass protest. NANS, using the Commemoration Day of “Ali-Must- GO”, staged a mass protest, in which many students were shot and killed in ABU, Zaria. The Government’s crackdown was widened and started in full swing:
– Arbitrary arrest of NLC leaders and “bombardment” of NLC offices started across Nigeria
– Plans to Weaken ASUU were hastily hatched and implemented
(1) ASUU was de-affiliated from the NLC by Decree 16 of 1986
(2) Payment of check off dues was made voluntary for ASUU and NANS
(3)The Abisoye Panel set up on ABU Crisis recommended sacking of lecturers for “…not teaching what they were paid to teach”
– A Year later (1987) UniBen VC, Prof. Grace Alele Williams, acting on the contrived report of visitation panel, announced the sack of ASUU President, Dr.Festus Iyayi, from the University. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017).
By the time Dr Attahiru M Jega (Dr Iyayi’s Vice-President) was elected ASUU President in an early NDC in 1988, the IBB regime, following the World Bank Agenda, had added more to the list of its atrocities. In fact, a reign of terror was unleashed:
– Government’s plans to retrench lecturers and rationalize courses had already reached advanced stages
– Dr. Patrick Wilmot (ABU, Zaria), a Scholar and vocal critic of Western imperialism, and Ms. Firinne N.C. Adelugba (BUK) had been covertly abducted and deported from Nigeria
– Government was blatant in its refusal to implement the earlier negotiated EUSS (Elongated University Salary Structure)
– As fuel prices were hiked by the Regime, students protested and the Government responded with massive crackdown on their leadership and on other activists across the country
– NLC was summarily dissolved and sole administrator appointed. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)
These constituted Dr Jega’s immediate challenges as the new ASUU President, and his EXCO set out to confront them head on. They formed Joint Action Committee (JAC) with the Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospital, Research Institutes and Allied Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) to present a united front. JAC submitted its demands to Government, which were expectedly shunned. Joint strike commenced nationwide on July 1, 1988. Curiously, only ASUU was immediately banned. The leadership of SSAUTHRIAI immediately capitulated, dissociated itself from the JAC and called off the strike. ASUU continued with the strike under University Lecturers’ Association (ULA). Government immediately launched a crackdown on national and local leadership of ASUU. Drs Jega, Iyayi, and other national officers were arrested and taken to unknown location (which was later learnt to be Lagos) for over a month. Many branch chairmen, secretaries and activists of the Union were arrested across the nation. Yet, the declared strike was kept alive by, more or less, leaderless members; it lingered for sometime, but finally fizzled out unofficially.
Signature campaigns for the release of all the arrested ASUU leaders and members were initiated nationwide. A legal action was instituted in Kano High Court for their freedom. A day to the verdict, Dr Jega was produced and presented to the court; and all others were released. Case closed, but ASUU remained officially banned (1988-1990). Despite this situation, academics never ceased to organize. They continued to network and organize under different names. It was remarkable, given the circumstances, to be able to stop the World Bank University Sector Loan Facility and consequential staff rationalization. The Loan Facility was carefully packaged to sow the seed for Nigerian University System Innovation Project (NUSIP), which popped up later as Obasanjo Administration’s initiative.
The occurrance of an interesting coincidence in 1990 helped to expose the desperation of the IBB regime to implement the IMF/World Bank policies. A day after the Association of University Teachers (AUT) – name adopted by the banned ASUU – had held a National Conference on the World Bank in OAU, Ile-Ife, the Orka Coup took place, April 22, 1990. In his coup speech, Major Gideon Orkar made apparently innocuous reference to the prevalent repressive tendencies of IBB and his Government. He adduced three reasons for the coup, part of which included:
“(d) The intent to cow the students by the promulgation of the draconian Decree Number 47.
(e) The cowing of the university teaching and non-teaching staff by an intended massive purge, using the 150 million dollar loan as the necessitating factor.”
Given the contemporary issues against which the ASUU, NLC and students were consistently united, and that which informed the core of their struggles against the government, it was easy for a sensitive government like IBB’s to perceive a connection between the coup and the conference. Hence, the conferene organizers, Prof. Omotoye Olorode and Dr. Idowu Awopetu (ASUU National Treasurer) were immediately arrested and detained as alledged coup suspects.They were subjected to military trials (Court Martial) but were found innocent and released. Yet, they were compulsorily retired “in public interest”. They were reinstated by the court when Prof. Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa became Education Minister.
After a long spell of unease between the Government and AUT (the former still defiant to address ASUU’s demands), September 1990 became a new dawn for ASUU as it was deproscribed. ASUU intensified its demand for collective bargaining – to negotiate the conditions of service and other work-related issues for its members. The IBB Gvernment remained adamant and invariably hostile whenever ASUU made attempt to push its demands, until May 1992, when Dr Jega was reelected President. After several failed efforts to get the Government to start negotiation, ASUU commenced the suspended strike. However, as if that was the Greenhouse conditions desperately needed, the Government readily submitted to start negotiation as the strike subsisted. What an irony! No sooner had the negotiation commenced than it was unilaterally suspended by the Government! ASUU had no option than to commence the strike.
On May 25, the strike commenced, but had to be suspended on May 30 as Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) stepped in. That marked the beginning of a series of crowded activities as ASUU responded to every Government move to arm-twist its way. ASUU continued to checkmate the Government’s unsavory litiny of absurdities until one by one they reached their climax and crumbled with a bang. Follow the labyrinth of tragicomedy of industrial relations as it unfolded:
– On June 1, the IAP found Dr Jega guilty of contempt of court, but the judge, apparently considering the weighty political implications, decided to waive it.
– On July 20, with Government irresponsibilty, ASUU had to commence the strike
– On July 22, ASUU was banned again, but the strike continued under Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU)
– The situation remained until the Government was forced to negotiate through a committee it constituted
– On September 3, 1992, the two parties reached an agreement on Funding, Conditions of Service [with University Academic Salary Scale (UASS)], and Autonomy and Academic Freedom
– On September 4, the 4-month old strike was suspended and academic activities commenced.
Immediately the Agreement was signed, other university workers were instigated to ask for “parity”, insisting that whatever was given to ASUU must be given to them. Even some of their members reasoned and questioned the basis of their leaders’ claims to parity, pointing out that they had been part of JAC when the struggle had begun, but unilaterally decided to ditch the JAC, capitulated and called off the strike when the chips were down. With our union preserved and intact, and without any collectively bargained agreement, what justification do we have to claim parity? – these SSANU members rationally queried.
However, as implementation of the ASUU Agreement commenced SSANU intensified its parity demand, which led to another round of the “Theatre of the Absurd”. The new vicious cycle started with the appointment of Professor Ben Nwabueze as Secretary (Minister) of Education. He contrived a new concept of “the Agreement of Imperfect Obligation”, meaning that the FG/ASUU Agreement was not (legally) binding on the Government to implement. He therefore directed universities to stop implementing the UASS/USS. Without any provocation, Prof Nwabueze continued his vicious attacks on ASUU with systematic breaches of the Agreement. It was obvious that he was deployed to do the hatchet job, and he was certainly doing it with utmost efficiency. ASUU’s voice of protest was drowned in a wirlwind of blackmail and intimidation. Its persistent demand to stop the breaches of the Agreement came up against a brick wall. With most aspects of the Agreement rolled back and no sign of de-escalating the breaches, ASUU had no option other than to take action.
– ASUU resumed the strike on May 3, 1993, and all member universities joined
– Three days later, the Government announced the dismissal of all striking lecturers and salary stoppage
– A Decree making teaching essential service, retroactively prohibiting teachers from going on strike, was enacted
– All lecturers on strike were given sack letters
– In some campuses, lecturers were ejected from their houses, despite the argument that residency of campus quarters was governed by the rental law.
– A particular case of UniAbuja Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Isa Muhammed, was pathetic. He went to the extent of sending the estate staff to tear off the roofs of lecturers’ houses, and then the security personnel to eject them.
– Even after the reinstatement of all lecturers later, Prof. Isa Muhammed refused to reinstate the EXCO of UniAbuja.

(TO BE CONTINUED…..)

Opinion

The Rise of AI Delusion: A Student’s Perspective on How AI is Reshaping Relationships, Mentorship, and Counselling

Published

on

 

 

 

Modern campus life is undergoing a quiet but profound psychological shift. If you walk into any university hostel or library late at night, you will see students intensely staring at their screens. They are not just scrolling through social media or typing out assignments; many are having deep, highly personal conversations with artificial intelligence. Faced with intense academic pressure, social isolation, and a volatile job market, students are increasingly treating generative AI chatbots not just as functional engines, but as emotional lifelines.

This emerging phenomenon highlights what can be called the “AI Delusion”—the psychological tendency for users to attribute real human consciousness, genuine empathy, and authentic wisdom to automated language models that are simply predicting words based on statistical data. From a student’s perspective, this reliance is quietly reshaping the three foundational pillars of the higher education experience: interpersonal relationships, academic mentorship, and mental health counselling.

First, AI is radically changing the landscape of campus relationships. Loneliness remains a massive hurdle in student environments, prompting many undergraduates to turn to AI companion applications for immediate interaction.

These applications are available 24/7, never judge, and offer a simulated space of comfort. However, the delusion occurs when a student confuses this simulated, one-sided validation with a real, reciprocal relationship. While data on conversational AI shows these tools can temporarily lower perceived feelings of isolation, psychologists confirm they do not resolve structural clinical symptoms. Human relationships are naturally messy. They require conflict resolution, compromise, and mutual vulnerability. By retreating into digital relationships with chatbots, students risk letting their real-world social skills atrophy, making genuine human interaction feel too exhausting to pursue.

Advert

Second, the delusion is altering the nature of academic and career mentorship. Guidance traditionally came from professors, older peers, or university alumni who shared lived experiences, industry networks, and personal failures. Today, students frequently bypass this human network entirely, asking AI to evaluate their skills and map out their professional futures. While generative AI tools excel at formatting resumes or providing structured career advice, they carry a high risk of user over-reliance.

Educators confirm that automated tools fundamentally lack the nuanced relational, situational, and developmental depth that defines authentic human mentorship. Students who depend solely on automated advisors miss out on the critical “hidden curriculum” of professional networking and human intuition that an algorithm simply cannot simulate.

Third, and perhaps most critically, AI is transforming mental health counselling on campus. University wellness centres globally face extreme backlogs, high costs, and institutional bottlenecks, forcing students to look for alternative solutions. Consequently, an increasing number of youth now utilize AI chatbots as standalone “pocket therapists” to process anxiety and trauma. The delusion of the digital counsellor poses serious psychological risks. Large language models do not possess clinical judgment or genuine empathy. Medical experts warn that while evidence-based digital therapy apps can serve as helpful administrative or basic self-help scaffolds between sessions, they cannot substitute for a qualified human therapist. Relying on pattern-recognition robots during a severe psychological crisis can result in superficial coping mechanisms or dangerously isolated coping loops.

Ultimately, analyzing this trend from a student’s perspective reveals that technology must have strict emotional and practical boundaries. AI is an incredible tool for brainstorming, accelerating research, and enhancing productivity, but it becomes a delusion the moment we allow it to replace human depth. If our generation is to thrive in a digital future, we must treat AI as a bicycle for the mind rather than a replacement for the human heart. True growth, emotional resilience, and professional success will always require real human connections, authentic mentors, and real human empathy.

Adeyemi Ige Taiwo Oluwatosin
200-level student, Department of Development and Strategic Communication, University of Abuja.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Question Over Killings, Kidnappings, and Bandit Attacks: What Exactly Will Homeland Security Change?

Published

on

Abraham Victory

 

By Abraham Victory

When more than forty schoolchildren were abducted during coordinated attacks on schools in Borno in May, Nigerians were reminded of one of the country’s darkest security nightmares: the return of large-scale school kidnappings.

Only weeks later, reports emerged of fresh bandit attacks in Zamfara, where farmers were killed while working on their farmlands. Across parts of Benue and the Middle Belt, communities continued to mourn victims of deadly attacks that left many families displaced and fearful about what tomorrow might bring.

For ordinary Nigerians, these incidents are no longer isolated headlines. They have become symbols of a broader security crisis that has persisted despite the presence of numerous security agencies and repeated government reforms.

It is against this backdrop that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s creation of the office of Special Adviser on Homeland Security deserves serious public scrutiny.

The appointment has generated debate among security experts, policymakers, and citizens alike. Supporters argue that Nigeria’s growing internal security challenges require specialised attention. Critics worry that the country may be creating another layer of bureaucracy without addressing the real problem.

The question Nigerians should be asking is straightforward: Would another office have prevented these attacks?

The answer depends on how one understands Nigeria’s security challenge.

Advert

Take the recent school abductions. The issue was not the absence of security institutions. Nigeria already has the military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence agencies, and the Office of the National Security Adviser. The challenge was whether intelligence was gathered early enough, shared effectively, and acted upon before the attacks occurred.

The same question applies to the recurring attacks in Benue and the resurgence of bandit activities across the North-West. In many cases, local communities claim warning signs existed before attacks occurred. Yet security responses often arrived after lives had already been lost.

This suggests that Nigeria’s greatest security challenge may not be a shortage of institutions but a shortage of coordination.

The Office of the National Security Adviser was created precisely to address this problem. The NSA coordinates intelligence activities, advises the President on security matters, and facilitates cooperation among agencies. If Homeland Security is established as a parallel structure with overlapping responsibilities, the risk is that coordination problems could become even more complicated rather than less.

Who receives intelligence first? Who coordinates domestic threat responses? Who bears responsibility when security failures occur?

These questions matter because effective security management depends on clear authority and accountability.

None of this means Homeland Security is unnecessary. The recent wave of kidnappings, bandit attacks, and mass killings demonstrates that Nigeria’s internal security challenges require specialised attention. However, specialisation should strengthen coordination, not weaken it.

A Homeland Security structure can add value if it operates under the strategic framework of the National Security Adviser, focusing specifically on domestic threat management, emergency preparedness, critical infrastructure protection, and internal intelligence integration.

What Nigerians need today is not another competition among security institutions. They need a system capable of preventing the next school abduction, stopping the next bandit attack, and protecting the next vulnerable community before tragedy occurs.

The success of Homeland Security will therefore not be measured by the title of the office or the prestige of the appointment.

It will be measured by a far simpler standard: whether fewer children are kidnapped, fewer communities are attacked, and fewer Nigerians lose their lives to insecurity.

That is the question the government must answer, and it is the result Nigerians deserve.

Abraham Victory
Department of Development and Strategic Communication
200 Level
Abuja, Nigeria

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Prophet’s Mosque, Al-Rawdah, and the Inner Peace of the Visitor’s Mind

Published

on

 

By Abubakar Dangambo

Madinah Al-Munawwarah, the radiant city of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), occupies a unique place in the hearts of Muslims across the world. Located about 450 kilometers from Makkah, it is a city of peace, spirituality, and immense historical significance. For millions of believers, visiting Madinah is not merely a journey; it is the fulfillment of a lifelong dream.

Unlike many great cities of the world that are known for their skyscrapers, industries, or commercial activities, Madinah is known for something far more precious—tranquility. The moment a visitor enters the city, he is greeted by an atmosphere of calmness and serenity that is difficult to describe in words. The city seems to embrace every visitor with a sense of comfort, reminding them that they are walking on land blessed by the presence of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).

At the heart of Madinah stands the magnificent Prophet’s Mosque (Al-Masjid An-Nabawi), one of the holiest sites in Islam. Within its sacred boundaries lies the house of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), where he spent much of his life and where he is buried alongside his beloved companions, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA) and Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA).

The first time I entered Madinah and subsequently stepped into the Prophet’s Mosque to observe the Maghrib and Isha prayers, I was overwhelmed with emotion. Words failed me. My eyes filled with tears of joy and gratitude. For years, I had dreamed of visiting this sacred place, and suddenly I found myself standing within its walls.

As I joined thousands of worshippers in prayer, an indescribable feeling settled over me. My mind became calm, my heart found rest, and my entire body felt a comfort unlike anything I had ever experienced. It was as though every burden and worry had been lifted away. The peaceful atmosphere of the mosque, combined with the spiritual presence of the place, created a feeling that remains unforgettable.

Although we arrived in Madinah late at night from Jeddah, I could hardly wait for dawn. Immediately after the Fajr prayer the following morning, I hurried back to the Prophet’s Mosque to visit the resting place of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his noble companions.

Advert

Standing before the sacred chamber was one of the most emotional moments of my life. Tears flowed freely as I thanked Allah Almighty for granting me the opportunity to fulfill a dream I had cherished for many years. I offered my greetings and salutations to the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr (RA), and Umar (RA), praying that Allah would count me among those who sincerely love and follow their noble example.

Another unforgettable experience was praying in Al-Rawdah, the blessed area between the Prophet’s pulpit and his house. The Prophet (peace be upon him) described it as a garden from the gardens of Paradise. Every Muslim who enters Al-Rawdah feels a special connection to history, faith, and spirituality. Being in that sacred space filled me with gratitude and humility. I spent those precious moments in prayer, reflection, and remembrance of Allah, thanking Him for His countless blessings.

What makes Madinah even more remarkable is not only its sacred sites but also the character of its people. The residents of Madinah are widely known for their kindness, hospitality, and respect for visitors. Whether in the streets, markets, hotels, or around the mosque, one encounters smiles, warm greetings, and genuine willingness to help.

The hospitality of the people reflects the legacy of the Ansar—the noble residents of Madinah who welcomed the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his companions during the Hijrah. That spirit of generosity and care continues to live on in the city today. Visitors from every race, language, and nationality are treated with respect and dignity, making them feel at home despite being far from their own countries.

Walking through the streets of Madinah is itself a memorable experience. The city is remarkably clean, organized, and peaceful. Around the Prophet’s Mosque, worshippers from every corner of the world gather in unity, demonstrating the universal brotherhood of Islam. Despite the diversity of cultures and languages, everyone is united by the same faith and love for Allah and His Messenger.

My stay in Madinah lasted only two days before I departed for Makkah to commence the rites of pilgrimage. Yet those two days remain among the most cherished moments of my life. The joy, comfort, spiritual fulfillment, and inner peace I experienced are memories that can never be erased.

Even now, whenever I reflect on those blessed days, my heart longs to return. Madinah is not simply a city one visits; it is a city that captures the soul. Its beauty lies not only in its buildings or landmarks but in the tranquility it offers, the history it preserves, and the spiritual connection it nurtures.

As I conclude this reflection, I pray that Allah, the Most Merciful, grants me another opportunity to visit Madinah and the Prophet’s Mosque. I also pray that every Muslim who desires to visit the blessed city will one day be granted that privilege.

May Allah continue to shower His peace and blessings upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), his family, his companions, and all those who follow his guidance until the Day of Judgment.

Ameen.

Continue Reading

Trending