DabELLs:


If Moses, Isaac and Joseph are irrelevant to Christians then your bible is useless.

It is not my Bible , I am not Christian. I do not subscribe to the Bible AT ALL and this argument exposes your emptiness. Now that we have got that out of the way can you deal with the matter at hand. I have no stake whatsoever in the Bible . It does not mention my people( Yoruba) and so in that regard yes it is useless to me though others may find it useful that is for them. I fail to see what any of that has to do with abductions by Muslims in Nigeria

ayatt:
from kano to sokoto to zamfara....am tired of this fuc.king news......tomorrow it might be racheal abducted from enugu to katsina.

dia is already from Ebonyi to Kaduna i.e the Ndubuisi Nicodemus case.

aribisala0:

Let us focus o Islam . It is no defence to say Okafor stole a goat last year when you are charged with stealing a goat this year.

I am not Christian and when any Christian like Reverend King commits crimes in the name of his religion we deal with that .

This argument you put forward is a defence by distraction and irrelevance. Saying you use a book to expose hypocrisy is absurd society is composed of Christians Traditionalists and those who do not believe in anything.
They all condemn many of these acts which Islam clings on to.

Christianity itself has a violent recent history which I won't go into here because it is NOT RELEVANT the fact is Christianity has been purged from the govement in virtually all previously Christian nations. While Islam still insists on SHARIA LAW still insists on political power and relevance and refuses to reform and acknowledge modern life. That is the fundamental issue and that is why we have these abductions because Muslims believe that the Quran is infallible and not negotiable a position that is not compatible with any modern constitution or state and that is why some Muslims advocate for the totalitarianism or ISIS etc
So the issue here is not to defend Islam by saying Christianity is just as bad .That won't work but to acknowledg that there is a problem and we cannot continue to live in a world where people insist that their religious books are LITERALLY TRUE,INFALLIBLE and NOT SUBORDINATE to constitutions

You keep saying you are not a Christian but I detect a bit of bias in your write-up. You're still not getting it, laws are often representative of the society in which they are enacted. Sharia Law is not accepted everywhere and the countries where they are accepted it is supported by the majority just like the U.S where government officials are sworn in by the Bible. Now to the bold part of your post, you really need to stop generalizing people. There are some Muslims who are thinking differently, we have moderate Muslims incorporating Western lifestyles with the religion and it is working out for them. The problem we have is radical Islam but don't get it twisted there are radicals in every religion. It's funny you brought up ISIS, you do realize that they don't qualify as Muslims and even Islamic scholars are condemning their acts globally. You might say that well they call themselves Islamic States and are against other religions but if you watched them closely and see how they kill defenseless people, you can conclude that they are not Muslims and are definitely not fighting Jihad. For how can you fight Jihad against defenseless people? Finally I want to open your eyes to what is truly going on. Take a look at Boko Haram, ISIS and other extremists, they all have one thing in common. They are all empowered by political,traditional/cultural and governmental entities. ISIS was created due to the take down of Saddam Hussein, we all know Saddam was the glue that held the Middle East in check most times. What of Boko Haram? Were they not empowered by those in politics, did they not rise out of the killing of their leader and frustrations which arose afterwards. My point remains this, it is easy to blame a religion for all the havoc and cruelty caused by human greed but the truth remains that religion itself was created to guide humans but that does not mean we do not have the free will to determine what is right or what is wrong. You do not need to tell me it's wrong to behead children, you do not need to tell me it's right to help the poor. Religion is nothing but guidance those who make it compulsory are the extremists in our midst.

aribisala0:
It is not my Bible , I am not Christian. I do not subscribe to the Bible AT ALL and this argument exposes your emptiness. Now that we have got that out of the way can you deal with the matter at hand. I have no stake whatsoever in the Bible . It does not mention my people( Yoruba) and so in that regard yes it is useless to me though others may find it useful that is for them. I fail to see what any of that has to do with abductions by Muslims in Nigeria

If you are neither a Muslim nor a Christian the you must be either Idol worshiper or atheist. Then your comment is irrelevant here cos people like you commit far note atrocities.

abbey621:


You keep saying you are not a Christian but I detect a bit of bias in your write-up. You're still not getting it, laws are often representative of the society in which they are enacted. Sharia Law is not accepted everywhere and the countries where they are accepted it is supported by the majority just like the U.S where government officials are sworn in by the Bible. Now to the bold part of your post, you really need to stop generalizing people. There are some Muslims who are thinking differently, we have moderate Muslims incorporating Western lifestyles with the religion and it is working out for them. The problem we have is radical Islam but don't get it twisted there are radicals in every religion. It's funny you brought up ISIS, you do realize that they don't qualify as Muslims and even Islamic scholars are condemning their acts globally. You might say that well they call themselves Islamic States and are against other religions but if you watched them closely and see how they kill defenseless people, you can conclude that they are not Muslims and are definitely not fighting Jihad. For how can you fight Jihad against defenseless people? Finally I want to open your eyes to what is truly going on. Take a look at Boko Haram, ISIS and other extremists, they all have one thing in common. They are all empowered by political,traditional/cultural and governmental entities. ISIS was created due to the take down of Saddam Hussein, we all know Saddam was the glue that held the Middle East in check most times. What of Boko Haram? Were they not empowered by those in politics, did they not rise out of the killing of their leader and frustrations which arose afterwards. My point remains this, it is easy to blame a religion for all the havoc and cruelty caused by human greed but the truth remains that religion itself was created to guide humans but that does not mean we do not have the free will to determine what is right or what is wrong. You do not need to tell me it's wrong to behead children, you do not need to tell me it's right to help the poor. Religion is nothing but guidance those who make it compulsory are the extremists in our midst.

Isis has attacked virtually all Muslim countries in the middle east except ISTREAL. Now tell me who is sponsoring them? it's just like boko aram too. They pretend to be Muslims to kill Muslims. 80% of their victims are Muslims.

DabELLs:


If you are neither a Muslim nor a Christian the you must be either Idol worshiper or atheist. Then your comment is irrelevant here cos people like you commit far note atrocities.

In other words you have a pigeon-hole into which you categorize everybody and use that categorization to avoid dealing with the issues. Well this is not about me. But Islam ad its rules around child sexual and other forced sexual liaisons. I see you have NOTHING to offer

aribisala0:
What does the expression "What your right hand possesses" ma malakat aymanukum mean? stop deceiving yourself.

The Quran says so many contradictory things which many so called Muslims deny. The fact is simple Muhammid advocated peace when he was in Mecca and had no political power. After he fled to Medina he became more militant and then Allah "allowed" all kinds of violent behaviour like hijacking caravans and so on. So people often make a distinction between Meccan Suras and Medinan Suras the latter being more violent in tone.

I am not a Christian and my criticism is not about promoting Christianity.

I have studied the Quran very well and it is the work of man. No doubt at some point a man in contact with his Higher Self but at other points a man motivated by politics power and selfish drives. How else does one explain Allah not finding anything to say in his revelation but to tell his prophet that it was okay for his adopted son to divorce his wife so he could marry her.

When you say The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion this is true but it also says that there is compulsion. Not only that there are countless hadiths of people who were given the option of being killed or converting

RIGHT HAND POSSES IS EXPLAINED BELOW


Does #Islam permit a #Muslim man to have sex with
his slaves in addition to his legal wives? Those
arguing it does, frequently cite the #Quran , verses
23:5-6 as support for their position.
These verses as translated by Yusuf Ali reads: “Who
abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in
the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right
hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from
blame”
The phrase “right hands possess” (arabic: Ma malakat
aymanukum) used in verse 23:6 is presumed to mean
“captives” (obtained through defensive war). And
hence, many interpret this verse as permitting sex with
one’s war captives or slaves.
However, the translation by Muhammad Asad reads
slightly differently: “and who are mindful of their
chastity[not giving way to their desires] with any but
their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully
possess [through wedlock]: for then, behold, they are
free of all blame”
Whilst I do like that you have chosen the nicest translation of
the original text I find it unfortunate to say that this is a biased
approach. I would prefer it if the Quran said not to have sex
with slaves, that is my preference, but it's a mixed blessing
that reality doesn't conform to my preferences.
1. Ahmad Ali: Except from their wives and women slaves of
old are free of blame,
2. Arberry: Save from their wives and what their right hands
own then being not blameworthy
3. Daryabadi: Save in regard to their spouses and those
whom their right hands own: so they are not blameworthy
4. Khan: Except from their wives or the legal bondwomen
that they possess, for then there is no blame upon them
5. Maududi: save from their wives, or those whom their right
hands possess; for with regard to them they are free from
blame
6. Pickthall: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their
right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy
7. Qaribullah: except with their wives and what their right
hand possess, and then they are not blamed.
8. Sahi Intl: Except from their wives or those their right hands
possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed
9. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or
(the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in
their case) they are free from blame,
10. Shakir: Except before their mates or those whom their right
hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,
There is quite a bit of variation here. Some interpret "Right
hands possess" to mean slaves, some just quote it as it
literally appears in the Quran. Ahmad Ali adds the words "of
old" which do not exist in the Quran, a good example of
translating the text to mean what you want rather than
translating what it actually says. From this all we can
conclude so far is that we need to work out the definition of
"Right hands possess".
1. Except with your wives or (to put it another way) with
those your right hands possess (through marriage).
2. Except with your wives or with those your right hands
posses.
The words "to put it another way" and "of old" do not appear
in the original Arabic so must be inferred from other parts of
the Quran, as Tanvir has done.
Muhammad Asad’s rendering of this verse indicates
that there is no blame if one has sex with whom they
“rightfully possess” through wedlock (ie. marriage).
The justification for this rendering is given in his
commentary on this verse, reproduced below:
“Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly
that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle
aw ("or" denotes a permissible alternative. This
interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch
as it is based on the assumption that sexual
intercourse with ones female slave is permitted
without marriage: an assumption, which is
contradicted by the Qur'an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and
24:32)
I will address each referenced verse in turn.
4:2 Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange
not the good for the bad (in your management
thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own
wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.
4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by
the orphans, marry of the women, who seem
good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear
that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then
one (only) or (the captives) that your right
hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye
will not do injustice.
Various hadiths explain that 4:2-3 are verses about men
marrying female orphans in their care. Two things these
verses forbid are
1. That the man mixes the wealth of the orphan with his own
because she has more money (Mainly described in 4:2)
2. If the man desires the orphan for reasons other than
money he must ensure that he pays her a suitable Mahr
(dowry), one that another suitor would have paid. Giving
her anything less than she deserves would unjust.


ALSO ON MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN MEDINAH

Am sure your reading of the Quran is biased.
When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) visited Mecca for the first time after he was sent out. He had his head lowered saying that "today is the day of forgiveness". So, the man you said hijacked caravans his definitely not my Prophet. Cuz the man I know is much more handsome, so beautiful. And I guess he is so selfish to he extent that 1.7billion human being want to copy everything he does. Lols. Think again bro. I mean he was awarded the greatest law giver of all time by the U S supreme Court of law. My Prophet is the best individual to walk the surface of Earth. And no matter what you say and how you say it, he would still continue to be. Just look around you. Shaadah is on the rise, people waking up every day.

I GUESS YOU AN ATHEIST TOO.. SMH

And you said

Daintelectual:
Social media is really a blessing! We have lived in the north and witnessed this kind of atrocities but nobody could do anything! Today try it and it's all over nigeria in a second!

This has been for long but has been suppressed.Teenage boys n girls are prime targets of such conversions.

abbey621:


You keep saying you are not a Christian but I detect a bit of bias in your write-up. You're still not getting it, laws are often representative of the society in which they are enacted. Sharia Law is not accepted everywhere and the countries where they are accepted it is supported by the majority just like the U.S where government officials are sworn in by the Bible. Now to the bold part of your post, you really need to stop generalizing people. There are some Muslims who are thinking differently, we have moderate Muslims incorporating Western lifestyles with the religion and it is working out for them. The problem we have is radical Islam but don't get it twisted there are radicals in every religion. It's funny you brought up ISIS, you do realize that they don't qualify as Muslims and even Islamic scholars are condemning their acts globally. You might say that well they call themselves Islamic States and are against other religions but if you watched them closely and see how they kill defenseless people, you can conclude that they are not Muslims and are definitely not fighting Jihad. For how can you fight Jihad against defenseless people? Finally I want to open your eyes to what is truly going on. Take a look at Boko Haram, ISIS and other extremists, they all have one thing in common. They are all empowered by political,traditional/cultural and governmental entities. ISIS was created due to the take down of Saddam Hussein, we all know Saddam was the glue that held the Middle East in check most times. What of Boko Haram? Were they not empowered by those in politics, did they not rise out of the killing of their leader and frustrations which arose afterwards. My point remains this, it is easy to blame a religion for all the havoc and cruelty caused by human greed but the truth remains that religion itself was created to guide humans but that does not mean we do not have the free will to determine what is right or what is wrong. You do not need to tell me it's wrong to behead children, you do not need to tell me it's right to help the poor. Religion is nothing but guidance those who make it compulsory are the extremists in our midst.

I am certainly biassed towards the lifestyle in former Christian countries because I would rather live in England France or Germany than Saudi Arabia Pakistan or Afghanistan. The reason is simple . I do not have to become Christian and they are officially secular and no longer "Christian" they have learnt the evil of mixing politics with state affairs and reformed while Muslims still want to be stoning and beheading

You detecting bias as you say is evidence of a poor argument.
Some Muslims may think differently but the subject of this thread is about institutional abductions of non-Muslims in Nigeria by Muslims so let us not lose sight of that by ad hominem and sentimental attacks on my person.

The fact that these abductions have a mien of an imprimatur of Emirs and Sultans etc is and indication that it is "Official" and also of what we could expect if we are not vigilant or if Muslims had a significant majority is the country. Yes some Muslims may think differently but the official position appears to be that young Muslim men can abduct women from the south and seek protection from Emirs that is the issue here not how bad Christians are . No doubt Christians perform a lot of evil my point is IT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE and bringing it up is not only wrong but dishonest

Terye:
RIGHT HAND POSSES IS EXPLAINED BELOW


Does #Islam permit a #Muslim man to have sex with
his slaves in addition to his legal wives? Those
arguing it does, frequently cite the #Quran , verses
23:5-6 as support for their position.
These verses as translated by Yusuf Ali reads: “Who
abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in
the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right
hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from
blame”
The phrase “right hands possess” (arabic: Ma malakat
aymanukum) used in verse 23:6 is presumed to mean
“captives” (obtained through defensive war). And
hence, many interpret this verse as permitting sex with
one’s war captives or slaves.
However, the translation by Muhammad Asad reads
slightly differently: “and who are mindful of their
chastity[not giving way to their desires] with any but
their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully
possess [through wedlock]: for then, behold, they are
free of all blame”
Whilst I do like that you have chosen the nicest translation of
the original text I find it unfortunate to say that this is a biased
approach. I would prefer it if the Quran said not to have sex
with slaves, that is my preference, but it's a mixed blessing
that reality doesn't conform to my preferences.
1. Ahmad Ali: Except from their wives and women slaves of
old are free of blame,
2. Arberry: Save from their wives and what their right hands
own then being not blameworthy
3. Daryabadi: Save in regard to their spouses and those
whom their right hands own: so they are not blameworthy
4. Khan: Except from their wives or the legal bondwomen
that they possess, for then there is no blame upon them
5. Maududi: save from their wives, or those whom their right
hands possess; for with regard to them they are free from
blame
6. Pickthall: Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their
right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy
7. Qaribullah: except with their wives and what their right
hand possess, and then they are not blamed.
8. Sahi Intl: Except from their wives or those their right hands
possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed
9. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or
(the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in
their case) they are free from blame,
10. Shakir: Except before their mates or those whom their right
hands possess, for they surely are not blameable,
There is quite a bit of variation here. Some interpret "Right
hands possess" to mean slaves, some just quote it as it
literally appears in the Quran. Ahmad Ali adds the words "of
old" which do not exist in the Quran, a good example of
translating the text to mean what you want rather than
translating what it actually says. From this all we can
conclude so far is that we need to work out the definition of
"Right hands possess".
1. Except with your wives or (to put it another way) with
those your right hands possess (through marriage).
2. Except with your wives or with those your right hands
posses.
The words "to put it another way" and "of old" do not appear
in the original Arabic so must be inferred from other parts of
the Quran, as Tanvir has done.
Muhammad Asad’s rendering of this verse indicates
that there is no blame if one has sex with whom they
“rightfully possess” through wedlock (ie. marriage).
The justification for this rendering is given in his
commentary on this verse, reproduced below:
“Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly
that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle
aw ("or" denotes a permissible alternative. This
interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch
as it is based on the assumption that sexual
intercourse with ones female slave is permitted
without marriage: an assumption, which is
contradicted by the Qur'an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and
24:32)
I will address each referenced verse in turn.
4:2 Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange
not the good for the bad (in your management
thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own
wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.
4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by
the orphans, marry of the women, who seem
good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear
that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then
one (only) or (the captives) that your right
hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye
will not do injustice.
Various hadiths explain that 4:2-3 are verses about men
marrying female orphans in their care. Two things these
verses forbid are
1. That the man mixes the wealth of the orphan with his own
because she has more money (Mainly described in 4:2)
2. If the man desires the orphan for reasons other than
money he must ensure that he pays her a suitable Mahr
(dowry), one that another suitor would have paid. Giving
her anything less than she deserves would unjust.


ALSO ON MUHAMMAD (PBUH) IN MEDINAH

Am sure your reading of the Quran is biased.
When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) visited Mecca for the first time after he was sent out. He had his head lowered saying that "today is the day of forgiveness". So, the man you said hijacked caravans his definitely not my Prophet. Cuz the man I know is much more handsome, so beautiful. And I guess he is so selfish to he extent that 1.7billion human being want to copy everything he does. Lols. Think again bro. I mean he was awarded the greatest law giver of all time by the U S supreme Court of law. My Prophet is the best individual to walk the surface of Earth. And no matter what you say and how you say it, he would still continue to be. Just look around you. Shaadah is on the rise, people waking up every day.

I GUESS YOU AN ATHEIST TOO.. SMH

And you said

Are you saying Muhammid did not hijack caravans?

For those who do not know caravans were simply a procession of Camels and animals travelling across the desert in a large number carrying a lot of goods and wealth.

Many Arabs in those days attacked such processions robbing them of valuables and you guessed right(WOMEN). They would kidnap men for ransom as well . That was how Muhammid lived while he was is Medina. In short the Modern day equivalent of a highway robber and we can see where Boko Haram draw their inspiration

Lilimax:
Huh?

Yes. You heard me. Read the Shari'ah

aribisala0:


Are you saying Muhammid did not hijack caravans?

Maybe you can help me with references..

Terye:
Maybe you can help me with references..

I want to expose you that is why I want you to deny it first

aribisala0:
I want to expose you that is why I want you to deny it first

LOL. Good that means you have actually been reading some Islamic literature.. Nice.. But lemme now enlighten you.

The Prophet (SAW) was chosen head of the city state of
Yathrib which was later renamed as MadinatunNabi, in 622
A D. To maintain the sovereignty of the state all passing
caravans or vehicles would become trespassers or
intruders unless it was recognised and affiliated by the
state. It's unconfirmed if there were any Jews caravans
were attacked as rights of Yathribi or Medinine Jews were
confirmed in Constitution of Medina and Jews of
Madina used to carry on their . Some espionage or traitor
troop of Jews may be taken down. The booty of Women
is also questionable. Trade caravan hardly had women as
the prolonged journey the desert were very havoc to bear.
Besides the question of sovereignty, the major operation
to capture Makkan Caravan took place as Makkans seized
the remaining properties of Muslims in Makka and wanted
to sell those in Syrian Market. That incident was one of
the precursor or first major Makkan-Muslims conflict.
So, the major cause of caravan raids WERE NOT GETTING
BOOTY, but to maintain sovereignty and achieve security
for newly formed state of Madina.

UNDERSTOOD??

aribisala0:


Are you saying Muhammid did not hijack caravans?

For those who do not know caravans were simply a procession of Camels and animals travelling across the desert in a large number carrying a lot of goods and wealth.

Many Arabs in those days attacked such processions robbing them of valuables and you guessed right(WOMEN). They would kidnap men for ransom as well . That was how Muhammid lived while he was is Medina. In short the Modern day equivalent of a highway robber and we can see where Boko Haram draw their inspiration

LOL. Ignorance.. Why not start reading from the authentic Hadeeth and see why 1.7billion individual wants to follow this "high way robber" as you called (I seek forgiveness for your soul). And you also said Boko follows this same man that I follow?, brother if you don't know, lemme tell you that 1 in every 4 individual in the world today follows this man. If he his then who you said he his, YOU WILL BE PROBABLY BE DEAD BY NOW. Stop been myopic and jes think straight for once. Don't forget the richest black man in the world, your president, your Senate president, all also follows this same man too. Lols.

Terye:
LOL. Good that means you have actually been reading some Islamic literature.. Nice.. But lemme now enlighten you.

The Prophet (SAW) was chosen head of the city state of
Yathrib which was later renamed as MadinatunNabi, in 622
A D. To maintain the sovereignty of the state all passing
caravans or vehicles would become trespassers or
intruders unless it was recognised and affiliated by the
state. It's unconfirmed if there were any Jews caravans
were attacked as rights of Yathribi or Medinine Jews were
confirmed in Constitution of Medina and Jews of
Madina used to carry on their . Some espionage or traitor
troop of Jews may be taken down. The booty of Women
is also questionable. Trade caravan hardly had women as
the prolonged journey the desert were very havoc to bear.
Besides the question of sovereignty, the major operation
to capture Makkan Caravan took place as Makkans seized
the remaining properties of Muslims in Makka and wanted
to sell those in Syrian Market. That incident was one of
the precursor or first major Makkan-Muslims conflict.
So, the major cause of caravan raids WERE NOT GETTING
BOOTY, but to maintain sovereignty and achieve security
for newly formed state of Madina.

UNDERSTOOD??

Terye:
Maybe you can help me with references..

The Arabs of the Arabian peninsula were a very immoral set of people with zero scruples and not much has changed since they acquired Islam.
The fact is that they lived in tribes or clans and they robbed each other whenever the opportunity presented itself but they had one convention which they all adhered to and any clan that broke this convention was considered dishonorable. This was a custom respected by all.
On one occasion out of desperation Muhammid who was also by now and established raider in Medina carried out a raid during this forbidden period. And of course Allah came to his rescue and revealed some new Ayah to justify this


Al Baqara

2:217 They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing.


The specific event that produced this was not "WARFARE" It was a despicable raid


There are other examples when ALLAH obliged his prophet in trivialities that no serious "GOD" would concern himself with to the extent of sending an angel to pronounce on such as facilitating the divorce of Muhammid's "SON" so Muhammid could marry her and also again Allah's pronouncement that No one must touch his wives after the prophet died.

Any person who wants to follow a prophet must be able to critically examine this prophet before following unquestioningly

aribisala0:
I am certainly biassed towards the lifestyle in former Christian countries because I would rather live in England France or Germany than Saudi Arabia Pakistan or Afghanistan. The reason is simple . I do not have to become Christian and they are officially secular and no longer "Christian" they have learnt the evil of mixing politics with state affairs and reformed while Muslims still want to be stoning and beheading

You detecting bias as you say is evidence of a poor argument.
Some Muslims may think differently but the subject of this thread is about institutional abductions of non-Muslims in Nigeria by Muslims so let us not lose sight of that by ad hominem and sentimental attacks on my person.

The fact that these abductions have a mien of an imprimatur of Emirs and Sultans etc is and indication that it is "Official" and also of what we could expect if we are not vigilant or if Muslims had a significant majority is the country. Y[b]es some Muslims may think differently but the official position appears to be that young Muslim men can abduct women from the south and seek protection from Emirs that is the issue here not how bad Christians are [/b]. No doubt Christians perform a lot of evil my point is IT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE and bringing it up is not only wrong but dishonest

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Of course Christian references are relevant here, you do not label a religion dangerous or evil and expect people not to compare it to what a majority of users here consider good or pure! The fact that you think the Muslim community makes it official the abduction of young women shows clearly that we can never see eye to eye. I prefer to argue based on facts and not sentiments. The fact that you label the actions of a few to mean the voice of the majority shows you do not know what you are talking about. You are yet to allude to the fact that if Nigeria enforced the laws in the Constitution such a thing can never happen, it is government's failure to enforce laws that led to most menaces we have today in Nigeria. I have many Muslim friends that are decent, hardworking and honest,my great grandfather was an Imam, he did so much good for his community and was very tolerant of people of different religion, my dad is the same way. I deal with executives and middle management personnel from some of the top companies in the U.S, some of them are strong Muslims and still participate in religious gatherings involving the christian and Jewish communities. Are they not reading the same Quran? Your assertion that the Islamic world approves kidnapping is not only false but just plain IGNORANT!

Terye:
LOL. Ignorance.. Why not start reading from the authentic Hadeeth and see why 1.7billion individual wants to follow this "high way robber" as you called (I seek forgiveness for your soul), and you said Boko follows him, brother is you don't know, 1 in every 4 individual in the world today follows this man. If he his then who you said he his, YOU WILL BE PROBABLY BE DEAD BY NOW. Stop been myopic and jes think straight for once. Don't forget the richest black man in the world also follows this same man too. Lols.

Let me show you the evidence that your argument is silly

1in 4 follow him therefore they must be on to something

4 in 4 Meccans worshipped their idols before he came so they must have been on to something even greater No?

Also today according to you 3 in 4 DO NOT FOLLOW him what do we make of that?

You have no argument and are desperately clutching at straws

aribisala0:


Are you saying Muhammid did not hijack caravans?

For those who do not know caravans were simply a procession of Camels and animals travelling across the desert in a large number carrying a lot of goods and wealth.

Many Arabs in those days attacked such processions robbing them of valuables and you guessed right(WOMEN). They would kidnap men for ransom as well . That was how Muhammid lived while he was is Medina. In short the Modern day equivalent of a highway robber and we can see where Boko Haram draw their inspiration

Where is your evidence? infidel

abbey621:


You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. Of course Christian references are relevant here, you do not label a religion dangerous or evil and expect people not to compare it to what a majority of users here consider good or pure! The fact that you think the Muslim community makes it official the abduction of young women shows clearly that we can never see eye to eye. I prefer to argue based on facts and not sentiments. The fact that you label the actions of a few to mean the voice of the majority shows you do not know what you are talking about. You are yet to allude to the fact that if Nigeria enforced the laws in the Constitution such a thing can never happen, it is government's failure to enforce laws that led to most menaces we have today in Nigeria. I have many Muslim friends that are decent, hardworking and honest,my great grandfather was an Imam, he did so much good for his community and was very tolerant of people of different religion, my dad is the same way. I deal with executives and middle management personnel from some of the top companies in the U.S, some of them are strong Muslims and still participate in religious gatherings involving the christian and Jewish communities. Are they not reading the same Quran? Your assertion that the Islamic world approves kidnapping is not only false but just plain IGNORANT!

I do not have a problem with Muslims as individuals but there is a phenomenon called Group Think. You may wish to check it up. When Muslims constitute a majority then the Group think is the resultant observed effect that is apparent to neutral unbiassed observers. Very few non-Muslims want to live in such places and only do so out of desperation or very limited choice. You can argue that till the cows come home but that is the truth. In such a system these so called good Muslims are predictable by their acquiescence to all these monstrosities

DabELLs:


Where is your evidence? infidel

Infidel? has it come to that? Predictable!! Thankfully I am not within beheading distance

Terye:
LOL. Good that means you have actually been reading some Islamic literature.. Nice.. But lemme now enlighten you.

The Prophet (SAW) was chosen head of the city state of
Yathrib which was later renamed as MadinatunNabi, in 622
A D. To maintain the sovereignty of the state all passing
caravans or vehicles would become trespassers or
intruders unless it was recognised and affiliated by the
state. It's unconfirmed if there were any Jews caravans
were attacked as rights of Yathribi or Medinine Jews were
confirmed in Constitution of Medina and Jews of
Madina used to carry on their . Some espionage or traitor
troop of Jews may be taken down. The booty of Women
is also questionable. Trade caravan hardly had women as
the prolonged journey the desert were very havoc to bear.
Besides the question of sovereignty, the major operation
to capture Makkan Caravan took place as Makkans seized
the remaining properties of Muslims in Makka and wanted
to sell those in Syrian Market. That incident was one of
the precursor or first major Makkan-Muslims conflict.
So, the major cause of caravan raids WERE NOT GETTING
BOOTY, but to maintain sovereignty and achieve security
for newly formed state of Madina.

UNDERSTOOD??

Prophet was NOT chosen

He achieved this by violence
Caravan hardly had women?

Where was the prophet's wife when she disappeared triggering rumours of infidelity

Read up what the prophet did to the Jews of Banu Qurayza


You need to face up o the truth about your prophet

He was just a man and I agree with him Jesus was just another man too

Let us eschew all these foreign fairy tales

aribisala0:
Let me show you the evidence that your argument is silly

1in 4 follow him therefore they must be on to something

4 in 4 Meccans worshipped their idols before he came so they must have been on to something even greater No?

Also today according to you 3 in 4 DO NOT FOLLOW him what do we make of that?

You have no argument and are desperately clutching at straws

lolz. Exactly my point. If 1.7billion people are following and taking inspiration from "high way robber".. You will surely be left with no valuables by now. If 1.7billion people as the same mentor as Boko. Then a bomb blast should be happening in your area right as I type. Stop been myopic bro. Even the Chief of Army staff fighting Boko is a Muslim. Ur commander in chief is a Muslim, your Senate president is a Muslim.

Stop defaming this man, instead, learn why the US Supreme Court awarded him as the greatest law giver of all times. Why he was mentioned in all the religious scriptures on earth (including indu), why 1.7billion persons want to copy him to the way he talks, dress, walk, and even sleeps. Use ur time well and you will see that the man we follow is not the same.. MUHAMMAD(PBUH).

Peace be unto you to the ultimate meaning of peace

Terye:
lolz. Exactly my point. If 1.7billion people are following and taking inspiration from "high way robber".. You will surely be left with no valuables by now. If 1.7billion people as the same mentor as Boko. Then a bomb blast should be happening in your area right as I type. Stop been myopic bro. Even the Chief of Army staff fighting Boko is a Muslim. Ur commander in chief is a Muslim, your Senate president is a Muslim.

Stop defaming this man, instead, learn why the US Supreme Court awarded him as the greatest law giver of all times. Why he was mentioned in all the religious scriptures on earth (including indu), why 1.7billion persons want to copy him to the way he talks, dress, walk, and even sleeps. Use ur time well and you will see that the man we follow is not the same.. MUHAMMAD(PBUH).

Peace be unto you to the ultimate meaning of peace

I do not characterize him only as a highway robber ,that was just one of his professions ,he had others ..........

aribisala0:

Prophet was NOT chosen

He achieved this by violence
Caravan hardly had women?

Where was the prophet's wife when she disappeared triggering rumours of infidelity

Read up what the prophet did to the Jews of Banu Qurayza


You need to face up o the truth about your prophet

He was just a man and I agree with him Jesus was just another man too

Let us eschew all these foreign fairy tales

I guess you are the one that needs to read bout him. Prophet Muhammad clearly not as you said he is.

And coming to you being an atheist. Can I ask you

DID YOU CREATE YOURSELF OR WAS IT SOME ONE ELSE WHO HAD FASHIONED YOU?

kachnov:
It's the era of kidnapping and converting minors?

Female minors

aribisala0:
I do not characterize him only as a highway robber ,that was just one of his professions ,he had others ..........

Just pray we are as patient as who you portrayed in such a barbaric manner of nothing but your imagination.

I seek forgiveness for you from my lord, surely he is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

Terye:
I guess you are the one that needs to read bout him. Prophet Muhammad clearly not as you said he is.

And coming to you being an atheist. Can I ask you

DID YOU CREATE YOURSELF OR WAS IT SOME ONE ELSE WHO HAD FASHIONED YOU?

I never told you I am an atheist . What I am is irrelevant. I see you do not wish to discuss the issue of ABDUCTIONS OF NON MUSLIM WOMEN BY MUSLIMS. That is the issue here NOT me so stop derailing


Again logic dictates that if God created me as you would argue then than God would need a creator and so on. If God does not need a creator why do I?



The truth is I do not know but I also know tha Muhammid was in the same position as me he did not know either.

Terye:
Just pray we are as patient as who you portrayed in such a barbaric manner of nothing but your imagination.

I seek forgiveness for you from my lord, surely he is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

Is it the case or not that Muhammad sanctioned attacks/raids on people of the book if they did not pay Jizya YES OR NO

Were they exempt from such tax if they converted to ISLAM yes or No

Yet you say there is no compulsion in religion?

aribisala0:
I do not have a problem with Muslims as individuals but there is a phenomenon called Group Think. You may wish to check it up. When Muslims constitute a majority then the Group think is the resultant observed effect that is apparent to neutral unbiassed observers. Very few non-Muslims want to live in such places and only do so out of desperation or very limited choice. You can argue that till the cows come home but that is the truth. In such a system these so called good Muslims are predictable by their acquiescence to all these monstrosities

You still don't know what you are talking about! Any place where one group or belief is a majority, the minorities always feel neglected or unsafe. Trust me I know what groupthinking is and it is an undesired effect especially in management, based on your theory since Christians represent majority of those in Vatican city and since we've had cases upon cases of child molestation associated with high ranking members, it is safe to say that Catholics are condoning the attrocities, come on even you can see how lame that is! The fact still remains you don't judge the existence of many based on the actions of a few. Muslims represents 1.7 Billion of the world's population, extremists makes up less than 5% of that, extremists exists in all religion and that's all there is to it!

aribisala0:


I never told you I am an atheist . What I am is irrelevant. I see you do not wish to discuss the issue of ABDUCTIONS OF NON MUSLIM WOMEN BY MUSLIMS. That is the issue here NOT me so stop derailing


Again logic dictates that if God created me as you would argue then than God would need a creator and so on. If God does not need a creator why do I?



The truth is I do not know but I also know tha Muhammid was in the same position as me he did not know either.

LOLZ.. LMAO. That explains some few things you know. Muhammad (PBUH) is not like you in any way. He had a creator, he had a purpose.

IT'S OBVIOUS THAT HUMAN BEING ARE PRODUCT OF SUPREME INTELLIGENCE.

Take a look at you eye, no camera on this planet can come close to it.

And no computer can compete along side the human mind. And if we r to all come together we will not be able to create a single fly.


So many signs yet you still deny.

And to the adoption of the "women of Quraysh".. Every nation has its rules and regulations. I mean, Ukraine detains illegal Russian citizens on there territory don't they? So why is so much emphasis laid on the people of Quraysh. And if you don't know, Prophet Muhammad was from that same family so he would never do such barbaric act to his family.

The reason I don't wanna discuss this with u is you are just been myopic in your thinking. Too shallow minded for me to teach. All I can do is to pray for ur wellbeing and guidance to the siratal Mustoqeem..

abbey621:


You still don't know what you are talking about! Any place where one group or belief is a majority, the minorities always feel neglected or unsafe. Trust me I know what groupthinking is and it is an undesired effect especially in management, based on your theory since Christians represent majority of those in Vatican city and since we've had cases upon cases of child molestation associated with high ranking members, it is safe to say that Catholics are condoning the attrocities, come on even you can see how lame that is! The fact still remains you don't judge the existence of many based on the actions of a few. Muslims represents 1.7 Billion of the world's population, extremists makes up less than 5% of that, extremists exists in all religion and that's all there is to it!

0.003% not 5%.