fuckingAyaya:
Hypocrites

This is not a laughing matter. So it means Kano is now officially an Islamic state in a "Secular" Nigeria?.

Oh, Lord Lugard

Mumu state, instead of them to chase object they are chasing shadow

Who ask them to produce or bring it to d north since they know that is prohibited bunch of fools everywhere

ZKOSOSO:
The only Job that gives them Ecstasy in whole world....destruction of perceived enemy's sources of livelihood.

Hisbah won't fight Boko Haram, Fulani Herdsmen, Zamfara Bandits. But at the sight of bottles of beer that belong to Igbos, all their energies are fully charged to destroy.

So why doesn't the Federal Government set up beer colonies as they want to do for cattle to evade the anti-grazing laws. Why isn't Federal land in Kano not proposed for this alcohol colony. Or should they wait for beer distributors to form their own 'Miyetti' complete with AK47 wielding youths to guard against Kano locals and sack any community that interfers with their liquor business.

Will this not be justice.

stanluiz:
Those brewery companies should stop distributing their product in the north especially kano state to avoid another huge loss because of unfriendly nature to alcohol which they regard as sharia.

Such a huge loss for the company.

Nope, they should start by sacking every Muslim in their payroll (you can't produce, distribute and market what you don't taste) and withdrawing every social responsibility in Kano.
While FG removes Kano from getting alcohol generated income

Sardauna24:
Who ask them to produce or bring it to d north since they know that is prohibited bunch of fools everywhere

Who asks cattle rearers to take their cattle on foot across various southern and middle belt states when they know open grazing is prohibited. For equity these beer dustributors should not keep silent but threaten the authorities of this state just as herdsmen continue to threaten their host states. Period. This country is not at the service nor at the pleasure of one section alone. That is why we need restructuring. For at least mutual respect.

chymevicks:

Nope, they should start by sacking every Muslim in their payroll (you can't produce, distribute and market what you don't taste) and withdrawing every social responsibility in Kano.
While FG removes Kano from getting alcohol generated income

Let us stop about this revenue or income abeg. It belittes the significance of what is happening. Nobody is begging them to reccgnise the benefits. No one is trying to incentify them to accepting that business... it is a matter of civil liberties enshrined in our constitution and where states are permitted to cross certain dangerous lines it goes beyond the business realm into the very stability of the country. Kano state is setting a dangerous precedent that is bound to have serious repercussions down the line.

ItsMeAboki:


Did you bother to read the first statement of my post at all or were you simply looking for an excuse to insult me and my region?

Revenue does not intoxicate but alcohol and drugs do; the law aims to keep out such intoxicants especially from our vulnerable youths in order to address an ongoing problem of addiction among them; while the revenue will go towards serving the ppl of the state including non - Muslim residents - it is therefore infantile to expect the state to refuse its legitimate due of the shared revenue.

BTW there is no shame in poverty; in my part of the country there is shame in immorality and decadence, we would rather therefore remain poor and what you call backward than turn ourselves to Olosho champions and a nation of bastards - just to mention a few.

A weird thing to infantilize adults in your society in such a manner, yet you talk of "infantile". The overwhelming majority of us down South here don't stumble around as drunkards, whatever you may choose to believe. I've experimented with alcohol since I was like 13 and never been inebriated or intoxicated in my life - neither do I have any friends or family I know who are drunkards, and my dad and my brothers drink. Infact, naturally on my own, I restrained myself to beer and mildly alcoholic wines, and I never drink hard spirits like whisky, brandy, vodka etc. Perhaps have a little faith in the natural restraint of grown adults rather than looking to program and indoctrinate and coerce and curtail their liberties with tyrannical laws. Grown-ass citizens are not children.

As for the revenue, if you decide to make such laws on moralistic grounds, surely you shouldn't be able to profit from the alcohol industry. I wouldn't blame the Northern sharia states for this, but the rest of the empty vessels in the National Assembly who would not pass legislation ensuring that not a kobo of the billions in VAT revenue from the alcohol industry should accrue to any state that bans production or distribution or consumption of alcohol within its territory.

lilytender:
I am a Muslim, but I don't know why I think this is very senseless. In short it is very foolish. Kano State government should have taken these to Onitsha where they get drunk everyday and sell at half the market price.

Tell them dull Zombies... After they want to collect Vat on Alcohol and also be the first to go to Dubai.

VAT on beer consumption are being shared according to the federal allocation formula, maybe Kano state should just ask to be exempted from this fund.

stanluiz:
Those brewery companies should stop distributing their product in the north especially kano state to avoid another huge loss because of unfriendly nature to alcohol which they regard as sharia.

Such a huge loss for the company.

Then Kano should be exempted from revenue from VAT allocation on Alcohol n tobacco .

You seize and destroy their tramadol containers in the ports, they retaliate by seizing and destroying your beer too... This is the logic behind this

Lemme tell you even in the southern and middle belt states you're yarning we have what is called cattle range it is a piece of land heardsmen use to cross with their cattle withiout damaging or vandalizing any one property or farmland but unfurtunate the so called leaders of your region with full of greediness,selffish nd personal interest made them to sold off the land some were build bd some they just dashed them out to their fellows And SECONDLY withiout the herdsmen you're barking of most of u pple cannot live well and comportable withiout them supplying meat and milk to you pple.they are just helping in the development of Nigerian Economy.

Reference:


Who asks cattle rearers to take their cattle on foot across various southern and middle belt states when they know open grazing is prohibited. For equity these beer dustributors should not keep silent but threaten the authorities of this state just as herdsmen continue to threaten their host states. Period. This country is not at the service nor at the pleasure of one section alone. That is why we need restructuring. For at least mutual respect.

Obi1kenobi:


A weird thing to infantilize adults in your society in such a manner, yet you talk of "infantile". The overwhelming majority of us down South here don't stumble around as drunkards, whatever you may choose to believe. I've experimented with alcohol since I was like 13 and never been inebriated or intoxicated in my life - neither do I have any friends or family I know who are drunkards, and my dad and my brothers drink. Infact, naturally on my own, I restrained myself to beer and mildly alcoholic wines, and I never drink hard spirits like whisky, brandy, vodka etc. Perhaps have a little faith in the natural restraint of grown adults rather than looking to program and indoctrinate and coerce and curtail their liberties with tyrannical laws. Grown-ass citizens are not children.

As for the revenue, if you decide to make such laws on moralistic grounds, surely you shouldn't be able to profit from the alcohol industry. I wouldn't blame the Northern sharia states for this, but the rest of the empty vessels in the National Assembly who would not pass legislation ensuring that not a kobo of the billions in VAT revenue from the alcohol industry should accrue to any state that bans production or distribution or consumption of alcohol within its territory.

I sometimes wonder why some of you appear to have brains that are seemingly skewed towards illogicality and misconception - despite a supposed superior education.

Your bigoted mind apparently would not allow you see that govts have a right to make laws for the benefit of their citizens; including ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol and other intoxicant, as enacted by the govt of Kano State.

FYI, at one time most states in America had such laws (google it yourself to confirm); recently the FG banned the sale and production of codeine based cough syrup - why then didn't you call it infantile?

I have already explained the reason for the ban and why the state govt would not reject its legitimate share of the revenue; if you still cannot understand that, then too bad; because I would not keep repeating myself in an endless cycle of futility.

ItsMeAboki:


I sometimes wonder why some of you appear to have brains that are seemingly skewed towards illogicality and misconception - despite a supposed superior education.

I don't care to indulge whatever inferiority complex you harbour. I haven't said anything about anyone's education.

Your bigoted mind apparently would not allow you see that govts have a right to make laws for the benefit of their citizens; including ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol and other intoxicant, as enacted by the govt of Kano State.

FYI, at one time most states in America had such laws (google it yourself to confirm); recently the FG banned the sale and production of codeine based cough syrup - why then didn't you call it infantile?

I have already explained the reason for the ban and why the state govt would not reject its legitimate share of the revenue; if you still cannot understand that, then too bad; because I would not keep repeating myself in an endless cycle of futility.

You seem confused by the role of the electorate. I'm at liberty to point out flaws in a law. I know up North, many of you are conditioned to have a slavish, unquestioning devotion to your leaders, but it's regressive. Sharia governments in the North can make whatever law they please and I can get to call them out for the mooronic laws they are. That's my prerogative. Questioning a law has nothing to do with "bigotry", but apparently you think projecting your own pathologies on me is a substitute for cogent arguments. I'd suggest bigotry is forming a parallel constitution that flagrantly violates the country's secular Federal laws because your society is intolerant of outsiders and non-Muslims.

US prohibition era laws in the 1920's, universally regarded as dark days, are your model of progressive governance? You do realize you're in the 21st century, right?

I can't comment on the addictive properties of codeine-based drugs, as I'm no expert on the chemistry. I know though that billions of people in the world function perfectly well in societies where it is legal to produce, consume and trade alcohol. You do not always have to align yourself with the regressive strides of theocracies like Somalia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Embrace freedom and individual liberties and secularism and stop legislating morality to control your masses like sheep. You'll be better for it and there'll be less Boko Harams in your neighborhood who think that you are not fundamentalist enough.

The state government should reject the revenue if they are not sanctimonious hypocrites. But as I said earlier too, it is hardly them that I blame but the spineless representatives of the rest of the country who always have to bend over backwards to accommodate whatever regressive whims our Northern brethren conjure up.

Obi1kenobi:


I don't care to indulge whatever inferiority complex you harbour. I haven't said anything about anyone's education.

You seem confused by the role of the electorate. I'm at liberty to point out flaws in a law. I know up North, many of you are conditioned to have a slavish, unquestioning devotion to your leaders, but it's regressive. Sharia governments in the North can make whatever law they please and I can get to call them out for the mooronic laws they are. That's my prerogative. Questioning a law has nothing to do with "bigotry", but apparently you think projecting your own pathologies on me is a substitute for cogent arguments. I'd suggest bigotry is forming a parallel constitution that flagrantly violates the country's secular Federal laws because your society is intolerant of outsiders and non-Muslims.

US prohibition era laws in the 1920's, universally regarded as dark days, are your model of progressive governance? You do realize you're in the 21st century, right?

I can't comment on the addictive properties of codeine-based drugs, as I'm no expert on the chemistry. I know though that billions of people in the world function perfectly well in societies where it is legal to produce, consume and trade alcohol. You do not always have to align yourself with the regressive strides of theocracies like Somalia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Embrace freedom and individual liberties and secularism and stop legislating morality to control your masses like sheep. You'll be better for it and there'll be less Boko Harams in your neighborhood who think that you are not fundamentalist enough.

The state government should reject the revenue if they are not sanctimonious hypocrites. But as I said earlier too, it is hardly them that I blame but the spineless representatives of the rest of the country who always have to bend over backwards to accommodate whatever regressive whims our Northern brethren conjure up.

You are quite entitled to your opinion; which unfortunately doesn't count as far as Kano ppl are concerned since they are not complaining about the law - only your ilk seem to be taking panadol for other ppl's headache.

Of course a bigot would always adduce to himself a monopoly of opinion; I am therefore not surprised that you should feel at liberty to criticise the Sharia law and even call it moronic; while at the same time feel at liberty to equally deny or question the rights of Kano citizens to willingly embrace it - what a hypocrite.

You seem to also to be quite ignorant of Nigerian constitution, which conveniently accommodates the Sharia, under the right to freedom of religion; otherwise you wouldn't be foolishly regarding it as a parallel constitution - if anything deserves to be deemed moronic, well that infantile assumption certainly is.

BTW, click on this link; it is currently on front page, and see how codeine pushed an Igbo boy in Abia to stab a little girl to death - unprovoked.
https://www.nairaland.com/4926873/teenage-boy-stabs-neighbours-daughter

ItsMeAboki:


You are quite entitled to your opinion; which unfortunately doesn't count as far as Kano ppl are concerned since they are not complaining about the law - only your ilk seem to be taking panadol for other ppl's headache.

Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. Finally, you acknowledge that rather than your earlier asinine assertion of the rights of the Kano government to pass the law - as if the right to pass the law was under dispute rather than the law's merits in a pluralistic, free society.
The whole of Nigeria is taking panadol for the headache of Northerners. We're still battling religious fundamentalists in the North who are blowing themselves up, murdering thousands and displacing millions. Apart from the blood and treasure wasted in battling the fundamentalists that your society has created, tens of billions from the national coffers are going into the North East Development Commission. If you were a separate country, I wouldn't care, but we share a destiny in this ill-fated contraption.

Of course a bigot would always adduce to himself a monopoly of opinion; I am therefore not surprised that you should feel at liberty to criticise the Sharia law and even call it moronic; while at the same time feel at liberty to equally deny or question the rights of Kano citizens to willingly embrace it - what a hypocrite.

You seem to also to be quite ignorant of Nigerian constitution, which conveniently accommodates the Sharia, under the right to freedom of religion; otherwise you wouldn't be foolishly regarding it as a parallel constitution - if anything deserves to be deemed moronic, well that infantile assumption certainly is.

Sharia law always existed at magisterial/customary level. Its elevation as an all-encompassing criminal justice system is unconstitutional and triggered a constitutional crisis under Obasanjo's administration, but Obasanjo, by his own words didn't want to inflame tensions in the very volatile North that always seemed on the precipice of open violence. Sharia law was also intended to apply only to Muslims, but the radicals expanded it to cover non-Muslims. You can read a brief legal analysis here, and Obasanjo's admission about why he let it fly:
http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/sharia-and-nigerian-constitution-strange-bedfellows
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/239755-self-serving-sharia-become-disaster-nigeria-obasanjo.html

You keep invoking words like "bigot".
1) Unlike you and your ilk, I don't engage in idiotic tribalistic e-battles. I'm more critical of my own tribe than any other group here.
2) I happen to be atheist and a secular humanist, and despise religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, you Muslims up North are far more dangerous to secular nationhood than the Christians. It's only up North that religion inspires mindless zombies to slaughter several dozen people because some cartoonist in Denmark drew a funny depiction of Mohammed, or have deadly riots because some 21-year-old Thisday journalist, Isioma Daniel, cracked a joke about Mohammed in 2002, or kill people and burn several churches because a teacher "desecrated" the Koran while confiscating from a pupil reading it in class.

In such a toxic atmosphere that has sprouted so much violence and already bred terrorist groups up North, perhaps those of you with an education should be looking to secularize your society, rather than offering silly apologetics for fundamentalism. I'll never understand how many of you Muslims seem to have no self-awareness of the barbarous, intolerant reputation you have earned around the world. You seek rights and privileges in foreign lands, but do not accord visitors in your own lands the same courtesy and always set out to be tyrannical overlords over any minorities in your lands. That's nothing to be proud of.

BTW, click on this link; it is currently on front page, and see how codeine pushed an Igbo boy in Abia to stab a little girl to death - unprovoked.
https://www.nairaland.com/4926873/teenage-boy-stabs-neighbours-daughter

Does that have any relevance with anything I'm saying about fundamentalism or did you just post it to tell me an Igbo boy murdered someone? You're such a child.

Obi1kenobi:


Of course I'm entitled to my opinion. Finally, you acknowledge that rather than your earlier asinine assertion of the rights of the Kano government to pass the law - as if the right to pass the law was under dispute rather than the law's merits in a pluralistic, free society.
The whole of Nigeria is taking panadol for the headache of Northerners. We're still battling religious fundamentalists in the North who are blowing themselves up, murdering thousands and displacing millions. Apart from the blood and treasure wasted in battling the fundamentalists that your society has created, tens of billions from the national coffers are going into the North East Development Commission. If you were a separate country, I wouldn't care, but we share a destiny in this ill-fated contraption.



Sharia law always existed at magisterial/customary level. Its elevation as an all-encompassing criminal justice system is unconstitutional and triggered a constitutional crisis under Obasanjo's administration, but Obasanjo, by his own words didn't want to inflame tensions in the very volatile North that always seemed on the precipice of open violence. Sharia law was also intended to apply only to Muslims, but the radicals expanded it to cover non-Muslims. You can read a brief legal analysis here, and Obasanjo's admission about why he let it fly:
http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/sharia-and-nigerian-constitution-strange-bedfellows
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/239755-self-serving-sharia-become-disaster-nigeria-obasanjo.html

You keep invoking words like "bigot".
1) Unlike you and your ilk, I don't engage in idiotic tribalistic e-battles. I'm more critical of my own tribe than any other group here.
2) I happen to be atheist and a secular humanist, and despise religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, you Muslims up North are far more dangerous to secular nationhood than the Christians. It's only up North that religion inspires mindless zombies to slaughter several dozen people because some cartoonist in Denmark drew a funny depiction of Mohammed, or have deadly riots because some 21-year-old Thisday journalist, Isioma Daniel, cracked a joke about Mohammed in 2002, or kill people and burn several churches because a teacher "desecrated" the Koran while confiscating from a pupil reading it in class.

In such a toxic atmosphere that has sprouted so much violence and already bred terrorist groups up North, perhaps those of you with an education should be looking to secularize your society, rather than offering silly apologetics for fundamentalism. I'll never understand how many of you Muslims seem to have no self-awareness of the barbarous, intolerant reputation you have earned around the world. You seek rights and privileges in foreign lands, but do not accord visitors in your own lands the same courtesy and always set out to be tyrannical overlords over any minorities in your lands. That's nothing to be proud of.



Does that have any relevance with anything I'm saying about fundamentalism or did you just post it to tell me an Igbo boy murdered someone? You're such a child.

You are quite incorrigible; you seem to forget that the democracy which guarantees you the right to freedom of expression among others also guarantees the govt and ppl of Kano State the right to choose and make laws consistent with their way of life; and furthermore that you cannot impose your personal or other alien values on them neither can your condemnation ever take away those rights - your are only deceiving yourself and merely ranting in futility.

One of the beauties of our democracy is that anyone who feels sufficiently aggrieved with any law is free to approach the court and challenge it - I therefore urge you to try same; even though many of your ilk have tried and failed.

I want to ask u in Christianity is it good to take beer,y are u blaming them if it destroyed

I detest hypocrisy

ItsMeAboki:


You are quite incorrigible; you seem to forget that the democracy which guarantees you the right to freedom of expression among others also guarantees the govt and ppl of Kano State the right to choose and make laws consistent with their way of life; and furthermore that you cannot impose your personal or other alien values on them neither can your condemnation ever take away those rights - your are only deceiving yourself and merely ranting in futility.

One of the beauties of our democracy is that anyone who feels sufficiently aggrieved with any law is free to approach the court and challenge it - I therefore urge you to try same; even though many of your ilk have tried and failed.

We're going round in circles here. Once again, I have not questioned the "rights" of the Sharia governments up North to pass regressive laws. I'm critiquing the wisdom and merits of the regressive laws. We can argue about our value systems and moral standards here - your theocratic beliefs against my secular humanism - but quit rehashing the tired line about the rights of the Kano state government and other sharia states. Their rights are not what is in dispute.

You also have a fundamental misconception of democracy as purely a majority-rules system. That might be what we learn in Primary School or JSS1 Social Studies, but true democracy does not accord tyrannical power to a majority and respects the rights and civil liberties of minorities: rights that many Muslims enjoy in other societies where they are minorities, but often do not grant to others due to their fundamentalist intolerance. There is nothing "democratic" about suppressing basic rights of residents - millions of whom are non-indigenes and non-Muslims - with Islamic tenets they don't subscribe to. Even Iran, Pakistan and Qatar which are theocracies, and hardly models of democracy, exclude non-Muslims from their alcohol prohibition. Why not embrace your religion as your personal value system rather than imposing it on others.

Obi1kenobi:


We're going round in circles here. Once again, I have not questioned the "rights" of the Sharia governments up North to pass regressive laws. I'm critiquing the wisdom and merits of the regressive laws. We can argue about our value systems and moral standards here - your theocratic beliefs against my secular humanism - but quit rehashing the tired line about the rights of the Kano state government and other sharia states. Their rights are not what is in dispute.

You also have a fundamental misconception of democracy as purely a majority-rules system. That might be what we learn in Primary School or JSS1 Social Studies, but true democracy does not accord tyrannical power to a majority and respects the rights and civil liberties of minorities: rights that many Muslims enjoy in other societies where they are minorities, but often do not grant to others due to their fundamentalist intolerance. There is nothing "democratic" about suppressing basic rights of residents - millions of whom are non-indigenes and non-Muslims - with Islamic tenets they don't subscribe to. Even Iran, Pakistan and Qatar which are theocracies, and hardly models of democracy, exclude non-Muslims from their alcohol prohibition. Why not embrace your religion as your personal value system rather than imposing it on others.

Since you agree they have the right to pass such laws then there is nothing to argue about, matter is closed - shikenan.

ItsMeAboki:


Keep exposing your ignorance; paedophilia very is rife in your region, it is a daily feature in your newspapers; fathers raping and impregnating own daughters, not to mention your men of God, pastors/priests who lead by example in molestation of young girls and boys; while your girls are so wayward, by age 10 many of them are already experienced leg opener Oloshos, ready to produce many bastards in baby factories lacking in home training, who would later grow up and embarrass many of us here in Nairaland with their show of hatred and stupidity.

As a true Muslim, when talking of sleeping with underage girls, I think its better to keep quiet seeing that Mohammed (S.A.W) was also guilty of the sane thing, even far worse....

obonujoker:


As a true Muslim, when talking of sleeping with underage girls, I think its better to keep quiet seeing that Mohammed (S.A.W) was also guilty of the sane thing, even far worse....

That line of argument by detractors had long been disproved with historical facts and calculations (can give you references to back it up); more importantly I would similarly want to remind you to research the age at which Mary (the mother of the Christian god) was betroth to Joseph and what is the current approved age for sexual consent at the Christian Headquarters, the Vatican - remember; ppl living in glass house should not throw stones.

ItsMeAboki:


That line of argument by detractors had long been disproved with historical facts and calculations (can give you references to back it up); more importantly I would similarly want to remind you to research the age at which Mary (the mother of the Christian god) was betroth to Joseph and what is the current approved age for sexual consent at the Christian Headquarters, the Vatican - remember; ppl living in glass house should not throw stones.

You can't compare the influence of Mohammad (S.a.w) in Islam to that of Joseph in Christianity... In fact in Christianity, Joseph is a nobody, buh in Islam, Muhammad is everything.....

obonujoker:


You can't compare the influence of Mohammad (S.a.w) in Islam to that of Joseph in Christianity... In fact in Christianity, Joseph is a nobody, buh in Islam, Muhammad is everything.....

There is no comparison between them; however, the issue you raised was not about importance but about the subject of paedophilia.
That was why you were referred to the age of at which Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who himself at that time was already an old man of about 70yrs, and by extension the age at which Mary subsequently gave birth to Jesus, after she must have been impregnated by the Christian god.
You were additionally referred to the age at which the Vatican up till now approves for sexual consent - which is 13 years.

Interesting thread

ItsMeAboki:


There is no comparison between them; however, the issue you raised was not about importance but about the subject of paedophilia.
That was why you were referred to the age of at which Mary was betrothed to Joseph, who himself at that time was already an old man of about 70yrs, and by extension the age at which Mary subsequently gave birth to Jesus, after she must have been impregnated by the Christian god.
You were additionally referred to the age at which the Vatican up till now approves for sexual consent - which is 13 years.

^^^
What's your take on the anti-grazing law passed by Benue State lawmakers and signed into law by the Benue State Government?

VolvoS60:


^^^
What's your take on the anti-grazing law passed by Benue State lawmakers and signed into law by the Benue State Government?

It is a legitimate law, even though targeted at an ethnic group in order to cleanse them out of the state; that is why MACBAN is challenging the law in court.

ItsMeAboki:


It is a legitimate law, even though targeted at an ethnic group in order to cleanse them out of the state; that is why MACBAN is challenging the law in court.

^^^
Ok. Fair enough. At least you acknowledge it is a law and you are not exhibiting any double standards here.

But take a close look at your comments up there. You clearly have an issue with what you believe to be the intent of Benue's anti grazing law - hence your comments about the law being "targeted at an ethnic group in order to cleanse them out of the state".

I am not holding brief for the fellow you were arguing with but you have unwittingly endorsed his position. The legitimacy of law is not the issue - it is the merit, wisdom and (to use your words) the intent of the laws that we are talking about here. In one of your previous posts, you said, and I quote: "Since you agree they (Sharia governments) have the right to pass such laws then there is nothing to argue about, matter is closed -shikenan". But the matter is NOT closed as your comments about the intent of Benue's anti-grazing law demonstrate - you clearly believe the legitimacy of a law is not the only issue worth considering.

I hope my point is clear.

VolvoS60:


^^^
Ok. Fair enough. At least you acknowledge it is a law and you are not exhibiting any double standards here.

But take a close look at your comments up there. You clearly have an issue with what you believe to be the intent of Benue's anti grazing law - hence your comments about the law being "targeted at an ethnic group in order to cleanse them out of the state".

I am not holding brief for the fellow you were arguing with but you have unwittingly endorsed his position. The legitimacy of law is not the issue - it is the merit, wisdom and (to use your words) the intent of the laws that we are talking about here. In one of your previous posts, you said, and I quote: "Since you agree they (Sharia governments) have the right to pass such laws then there is nothing to argue about, matter is closed -shikenan". But the matter is NOT closed as your comments about the intent of Benue's anti-grazing law demonstrate - you clearly believe the legitimacy of a law is not the only issue worth considering.

I hope my point is clear.

Although you claim not to be holding brief for him, you seem not have been following my arguments closely enough and are unwittingly doing the same.

My first comment on this thread was to emphasise the legitimacy of the law and advise anyone who disagrees with it to challenge it in the court.

Unfortunately, the gentleman ignored my position and persisted on his ignorant views by referring to Sharia laws as inconsistent with the secular nature of the country and a parallel constitution.

Note: the ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol in Kano was not enacted (as many still wrongly assume) under Sharia law; but rather, under the general legislative powers entitled to the state as provided by the constitution.

The intention of the said law (even though consistent with Islamic prohibition of alcohol) was clearly directed at curbing the ongoing problem of addiction to intoxicants in the state (alcohol among them) but not targeted against any particular group. It is important to also note, that although Sharia as practised in all Nigerian Sharia states have not been imposed on non-Muslims; however, Christians have reacting to it with unreasonable intolerance and hostility.

On the other hand, the Benue anti grazing laws, even though legitimate as already mention, seemed to have been targeted against Fulani herders in particular; because of some of the conditions attached to it e.g. making it difficult for the herder to acquire land and retain it for that purpose; through impractical requirement for annual land grant renewal (which can be easily denied/cancelled at any time irrespective of the herder's already tied down investment) - that is why the MACBAN felt sufficiently aggrieved to challenge it in court; just like anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Sharia (or any law) is advised to do, instead of spreading unnecessary hatred and ignorance.

ItsMeAboki:


Although you claim not to be holding brief for him, you seem not have been following my arguments closely enough and are unwittingly doing the same.

My first comment on this thread was to emphasise the legitimacy of the law and advise anyone who disagrees with it to challenge it in the court.

Unfortunately, the gentleman ignored my position and persisted on his ignorant views by referring to Sharia laws as inconsistent with the secular nature of the country and a parallel constitution.

Note: the ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol in Kano was not enacted (as many still wrongly assume) under Sharia law; but rather, under the general legislative powers entitled to the state as provided by the constitution.

The intention of the said law (even though consistent with Islamic prohibition of alcohol) was clearly directed at curbing the ongoing problem of addiction to intoxicants in the state (alcohol among them) but not targeted against any particular group. It is important to also note, that although Sharia as practised in all Nigerian Sharia states have not been imposed on non-Muslims; however, Christians have reacting to it with unreasonable intolerance and hostility.

On the other hand, the Benue anti grazing laws, even though legitimate as already mention, seemed to have been targeted against Fulani herders in particular; because of some of the conditions attached to it e.g. making it difficult for the herder to acquire land and retain it for that purpose; through impractical requirement for annual land grant renewal (which can be easily denied/cancelled at any time irrespective of the herder's already tied down investment) - that is why the MACBAN felt sufficiently aggrieved to challenge it in court; just like anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Sharia (or any law) is advised to do, instead of spreading unnecessary hatred and ignorance.

^^^
No Sir.

I have followed your arguments very closely. I agree with you that the courts will be the final arbiter. What I took exception to was your assertion that the right of states to legislate is the sole bone of contention – and that once that right is acknowledged then there is nothing left to argue about. I have been as clear as possible in differentiating between the rights of states to legislate and the merit, wisdom and intent (the terms used by you and the other fellow) of said legislation. There’s no point going back and forth on this so I’ll not say any more.

Are you absolutely sure that the alcohol ban in Kano was enacted under powers granted by the Nigerian Constitution and not Sharia law? I would appreciate any proof of this (links, dates, timelines, etc). Assuming what you say is accurate, the question of the agency of enforcement comes up. If the alcohol ban was enacted (as you say) under powers granted by the Nigerian constitution, why is enforcement being carried out by the Hisbah? If the alcohol ban was enacted under “general legislative powers” provided by the Nigerian constitution (your words) then why is enforcement being carried out by Islamic religious police and not the Nigeria Police? Do you see the contradiction Sir?

Again, I want to make clear that I am not holding brief for the fellow you were debating with. But he has a point about how some Nigerians view Sharia law as a parallel constitution – a view point borne out of hard experience. Nigeria has several companies that make alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The activities of these companies are regulated under federal law. These legally registered companies pay taxes to the federal government and there is also VAT charged on their products. These tax revenues are shared among the federal, state and local governments. To the best of my knowledge, no Sharia state has opted out of these tax revenue receipts. And yet, Sharia states seize and destroy alcoholic drinks in transit or at points of sale. Isn’t that a contradiction?

I note with wry amusement your comment about how “Sharia as practised in all Nigerian Sharia states have (sic) not been imposed on non-Muslims”. You cannot claim to know more than the late CJN Mohammed Bello. Justice Bello (in an interview before his death) stated clearly that Sharia law in Nigeria, would in practice, affect non-Muslims. I will always respect the man for telling it like it is and indeed history has proved him right.

My last point to you Sir, is a request for information. According to you, the intention of Kano’s alcohol ban was clearly directed at curbing the ongoing problem of addiction to intoxicants in the state (alcohol among them) but not targeted against any particular group”. Can you tell me what these intoxicants are?