Similar to what tunji has done in the islam section.I will also recomend we report and delete all pro-islam topics on this section.

Any thread or post that is meant to elevate or dignify prophet mohammed is contrary to biblical interpretations and should not be allowed here.

As far as christianity is concerned he tampered with the christian and jewish scriptures to create a false religion.

Since this section is also for atheists,pro atheist threads and posts should be allowed to thrive.
Likewise islamic threads or posts mocking atheism should not be allowed to thrive.
Before you accuse me of islamophobia,I am only doing what I think is right.If Tunji can do it in the islamic section.it is only fitting we replicate it here.

Didn't somebody got sacked for opposing Tunji or something of that nature? Tunji is the emir of NL, he has got no equal here

Why can't we instead ask for a different section for Christians like the muslim got or do Christians and atheists have a common origin?

superior1: Didn't somebody got sacked for opposing Tunji or something of that nature? Tunji is the emir of NL, he has got no equal here

Why can't we instead ask for a different section for Christians like the muslim got or do Christians and atheists have a common origin?

What do you mean tunji got no equal here? Are you suggesting we all piss in our pants @ the mention of the name of Emperor Tunji?

For those who might not be aware.My thread here is in response to this thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/1343040/operation-moving-train

is it necesary?moreover we are not competing,be original and dont bother urself about coping from muslims ok

chukwuinya: is it necesary?moreover we are not competing,be original and dont bother urself about coping from muslims ok

This is not about any hypocrisy,it is all about combating hypocrisy and double standards.

op who art thou?

To what end?

The section is also for Anti Christians, anti Catholics etc should their posts be allowed to thrive too Should the mods allow Alfa to post without restriction?

striktlymi: To what end?

The section is also for Anti Christians, anti Catholics etc should their posts be allowed to thrive too Should the mods allow Alfa to post without restriction?

I think he's right, if we are to go by the slogan 'islam for muslims'.
Every thing islam should be only open to the islamic.
Chukwudi, I support you.

Reyginus: I think he's right, if we are to go by the slogan 'islam for muslims'.
Every thing islam should be only open to the islamic.
Chukwudi, I support you.

I am of the opinion that it will only see Christians as intolerant.

striktlymi:

I am of the opinion that it will only see Christians as intolerant.

My brother, I don't think it is a question of tolerance but one of sustenance of choice/freewill. Think deeply about this.
I think we are being unjust every moment we enter their section or promote that which they believe is for the initiated alone.
It could have been a subject of tolerance if no such requirement was made on their part for a partaker, yet, we toe the part chukwudi is recommending.
A person who wants to be left alone should be left alone in every sense of the statement.

Whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.If xtians or atheists cannot critize the muslim faith.The same thing should apply to muslims.

Did you see the last posts Tunji made on that thread.He is now seeking the prohibition of anti-islamic posts or threads not only in his sharia section but also pan nairaland.

That is an affront on freedom of expression and fundamental human right.

If I think Mohammed is a paedophile,I should be free to express it,Tunji can also have the right to counter my points.That's the beauty of theological debates.

Reyginus: My brother, I don't think it is a question of tolerance but one of sustenance of choice/freewill. Think deeply about this.
I think we are being unjust every moment we enter their section or promote that which they believe is for the initiated alone.
It could have been a subject of tolerance if no such requirement was made on their part for a partaker, yet, we toe the part chukwudi is recommending.
A person who wants to be left alone should be left alone in every sense of the statement.

Hmmm...

If you are talking about fairness then I agree that the status quo is far from fair.

I agree to some of Chukwudi's recommendations if they are based on the principles of fairness.

chukwudi44: Whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.If xtians or atheists cannot critize the muslim faith.The same thing should apply to muslims.

Did you see the last posts Tunji made on that thread.He is now seeking the prohibition of anti-islamic posts or threads not only in his sharia section but also pan nairaland.

That is an affront on freedom of expression and fundamental human right.

If I think Mohammed is a paedophile,I should be free to express it,Tunji can also have the right to counter my points.That's the beauty of theological debates.

The last paragraph I do not agree with. If we think stuff about a revered personality of any religion we should not be at liberty to say just anything based on the principles of free speech.

There are ways to go about a discourse without sounding confrontational and offensive. There was a time Alfa put up something about Christ being gay and it did not go down well with any Christian. Same line of thought is applicable here.

striktlymi:

Hmmm...

If you are talking about fairness then I agree that the status quo is far from fair.

I agree to some of Chukwudi's recommendations if they are based on the principles of fairness.

Now he is trying to lose me. Lol. Which status quo is far from fair?

striktlymi:

The last paragraph I do not agree with. If we think stuff about a revered personality of any religion we should not be at liberty to say just anything based on the principles of free speech.

There are ways to go about a discourse without sounding confrontational and offensive. There was a time Alfa put up something about Christ being gay and it did not go down well with any Christian. Same line of thought is applicable here.

I also think the only problem in saying what we think is not having a rational explanation for it.

Reyginus: Now he is trying to lose me. Lol. Which status quo is far from fair?

Allowing Muslims to open threads undisturbed here while similar threads directed 'against' Islam are not allowed in the Islam for Muslim section.

striktlymi:

Allowing Muslims to open threads undisturbed here while similar threads directed 'against' Islam are not allowed in the Islam for Muslim section.

That's not even my issue with the muslims.
My take is, threads that promote the religion of islam should be taken to the islamic section.
They can open any thread here as long as it doesn't promote nor discuss islam.

Reyginus: That's not even my issue with the muslims.
My take is, threads that promote the religion of islam should be taken to the islamic section.
They can open any thread here as long as it doesn't promote nor discuss islam.

That too would mean taking all Anti-Islam threads opened by non-muslims to the Islam for Muslim section?

striktlymi:

That too would mean taking all Anti-Islam threads opened by non-muslims to the Islam for Muslim section?

It depends on what you mean by anti-islamic threads. Anything 'anti' is not allowed in the first place.
If you mean threads created to question some tenets of their faith, I don't see that as 'anti-islamic' either.
Except you want to tell me that trying to question the rationale behind a certain concept of any faith can be likened to antagonizing the faith.

Reyginus: It depends on what you mean by anti-islamic threads. Anything 'anti' is not allowed in the first place.
If you mean threads created to question some tenets of their faith, I don't see that as 'anti-islamic' either.
Except you want to tell me that trying to question the rationale behind a certain concept of any faith can be likened to antagonizing the faith.

Maybe you know how to draw the distinction between the Anti-Islam threads and the threads opened to question some basic tenets of Islam.

The truth is that a lot of us do not know how to properly draw this distinction. For instance, Chukwudi brought a question about the Prophet being a paedophile. This for me is offensive and Anti-Islamic.

striktlymi:

Maybe you know how to draw the distinction between the Anti-Islam threads and the threads opened to question some basic tenets of Islam.

The truth is that a lot of us do not know how to properly draw this distinction. For instance, Chukwudi brought a question about the Prophet being a paedophile. This for me is offensive and Anti-Islamic.

But was he lying?
You don't know the prophet to be a paedophlie?
It is not an insult. It is fact. Go read the qoran.

chukwudi44: Similar to what tunji has done in the islam section.I will also recomend we report and delete all pro-islam topics on this section.

Any thread or post that is meant to elevate or dignify prophet mohammed is contrary to biblical interpretations and should not be allowed here.

As far as christianity is concerned he tampered with the christian and jewish scriptures to create a false religion.

Since this section is also for atheists,pro atheist threads and posts should be allowed to thrive.
Likewise islamic threads or posts mocking atheism should not be allowed to thrive.
Before you accuse me of islamophobia,I am only doing what I think is right.If Tunji can do it in the islamic section.it is only fitting we replicate it here.

Very similar to what i had in plan before my ban. I was going to scrutinize all muslim topics and those were posted in this section and those that would usually be hidden or removed in the muslim section i would have done likewise here. Likewise whereas the mods in the muslim section can ban christians for two weeks for trivial offences, me that usually bans for only 48 hours woild do the same and ban them for two weeks as well.

Reyginus: But was he lying?
You don't know the prophet to be a paedophlie?
It is not an insult. It is fact. Go read the qoran.

Then you also do not know when to draw the line.

striktlymi:

Then you also do not know when to draw the line.

Lol. Dude thinks I'm not being fair.
Do you know when he took Aisha for a wife?

Reyginus: Lol. Dude thinks I'm not being fair.
Do you know when he took Aisha for a wife?

At age 6 and consummated at age 9. The time this was done, ladies were deemed ready for marriage when they get to the age of puberty. This was common at the time and not just peculiar to Islam or Muhammad. It was not wrong at the time.

So to say that Muhammad was a paedophile would be very incorrect.

striktlymi:

At age 6 and consummated at age 9. The time this was done, ladies were deemed ready for marriage when they get to the age of puberty. This was common at the time and not just peculiar to Islam or Muhammad. It was not wrong at the time.

So to say that Muhammad was a paedophile would be very incorrect.

Dude you surprise me now. To begin with, can a true and sensible fact change over time?

Reyginus: Dude you surprise me now. To begin with, can a true and sensible fact change over time?

The facts do NOT change and that is exactly why we can't accuse Muhammad of paedophilia. If anyone can show, matter of FACTLY, that at the time of Muhammad, it was wrong to consummate a marriage after a lady has attained puberty then I would concede.

I am very sure that today you would not support the betrothal system for very obvious reasons but this was practiced at the time of Jesus. Then it was not wrong but now we frown against it.

The bottom line here is that the way we see morality today is quite different from the way it was seen ages ago.

striktlymi:

At age 6 and consummated at age 9. The time this was done, ladies were deemed ready for marriage when they get to the age of puberty. This was common at the time and not just peculiar to Islam or Muhammad. It was not wrong at the time.

So to say that Muhammad was a paedophile would be very incorrect.

You are caving in for terrorist..........protecting the interest of Islam when christianity is dooming gradually on this forum.

Are you threatened too?

What the Hell is nairaland turning to?

striktlymi:

The facts do NOT change and that is exactly why we can't accuse Muhammad of paedophilia. If anyone can show, matter of FACTLY, that at the time of Muhammad, it was wrong to consummate a marriage after a lady has attained puberty then I would concede.

I am very sure that today you would not support the betrothal system for very obvious reasons but this was practiced at the time of Jesus. Then it was not wrong but now we frown against it.

The bottom line here is that the way we see morality today is quite different from the way it was seen ages ago.

Lol. Why are you contradicting your answer. If the true fact doesn't change, then you shouldn't be talking about the time of mohammed.
On a second thought, I begin to wonder what your definition of marriage will be like.
If a sensible person intends to make an agreement in whatsoever, I know you'd agree, as consequences of your stance, that only a particular party and not both should understand what the binding factor is all about.
Tell me you'd not agree that even puberty is insignificant if we are to come to terms with maturity. With your stance, even more like that can be said.
And now, let me make things clear.
What is this paedephilia we are even talking about?
Does morality depend on its perception at a time to be concrete?
Does it change?

striktlymi:

At age 6 and consummated at age 9. The time this was done, ladies were deemed ready for marriage when they get to the age of puberty. This was common at the time and not just peculiar to Islam or Muhammad. It was not wrong at the time.

So to say that Muhammad was a paedophile would be very incorrect.

Considering the age, and she wasn't even at puberty when married, but let's ignore that, that looks like a ped.o to me. So when say yarima says "I do so because uncle mo', the model human being, did such as well", it will be very correct to point out to him that mohammed was indeed.. a pe.do.

Everyone might have done it those days, according to you ie (I would say 12-13 would be more accurate, not 9, but we can ignore that), that does not mean it's not ped.ophilia though. Clearly not.

Reyginus: Lol. Why are you contradicting your answer. If the true fact doesn't change, then you shouldn't be talking about the time of mohammed.
On a second thought, I begin to wonder what your definition of marriage will be like.
If a sensible person intends to make an agreement in whatsoever, I know you'd agree, as consequences of your stance, that only a particular party and not both should understand what the binding factor is all about.
Tell me you'd not agree that even puberty is insignificant if we are to come to terms with maturity. With your stance, even more like that can be said.
And now, let me make things clear.
What is this paedophilia we are even talking about?
Does morality depend on its perception at a time to be concrete?
Does it change?

No contradictions here! If we are talking about the facts then we have no choice but introduce what is considered appropriate at the time of Muhammad lived.

Now, we all know for sure that morality is highly subjective and depends on a whole lot of factors, including time. I quite agree that there is a standard every 'form' of morality can be measured against but really this standard is NOT readily available to everyone for some reasons.