₦airaland Forum

RichyBlacK:
Okay, but the 1400s is not exactly arbitrary because Islam is only about 1400 years old today, and in the 1400s Christianity has about the age of Islam today.

I'm sure you can recall the "backwardness" of Christianity then.

Let's see, so if a religion is formed today, your idea of an objective comparative assessment will be the state of the religion's adherents today compared to the state of Christians 2000 years ago?

RichyBlacK:
I never made such a statement; maybe you deduced that, but that is not my view. Firstly, I don't agree that Islam is "backward". Secondly, do you have a time frame for when Western colonization started? What does "backward" mean?

Is Turkey, a member of NATO, backward?

Deduced? Your response to my point about the abject state of Islamic nations was that it was down to the West's intention to control their resources.

Islam is not progressive either. What will you call a religion whose many adherents revel in calling for a turning back of the clock. I believe there is a thread on the Muslim section about the iniquities of innovation.

Western colonisation of much of the Muslim world can be traced back to the end of the 19th century.

Backwardness is relative. Islamic societies are backward compared to non-Islamic societies when one looks at the level of socio-economic development of the 2 societies.  

Turkey is a European nation, at least going by its attempts to join the EU, and relative to its European peers it's backward by any measure: economics, democracy, scientific/technological progress.

RichyBlacK:
I disagree with that statement.

if you want to make a fair comparison between Islam and any other entity, then we must be fair in such task. Firstly, the other entity must be a religion. Secondly, we must factor in time.

Assuming we agree to use Christianity as the other entity, the question becomes when do we compare these two entities? Why not compare Islam today with Christianity in the 1400s?

We must properly establish the parameters of any comparison and not just use points in space/time that share no reference.

The 1400s? Why pick an arbitrary time frame? Why not compare the last 14 centuries, since when both religions came into existence instead of just picking the 15th century. The result will be clear.

Besides, today's world is the product of all that has gone before it. If you find today's world an unsatisfactory metric, the only objective metric for a proper comparison is the entire period both religions were in existence.

RichyBlacK:
You're confounding too many things. On one hand you have the West (not a religious setup) and on the other hand you have Islam (a religion).

This kind of conflation of entities only gives room for intellectual evasiveness.Can you summaries your opinion in one sentence? Let me take the lead:

Islam has beautiful aspects that go beyond the ugly images presented by American propaganda units like Fox and CNN.

The confusion lies with you. Let me summarise it thus:

RichyBlack: Islamic backwardness is the product of Western colonisation
4 Play: It can't be because it existed prior to and in the absence of Western colonisation.

There are beautiful aspects of Islam. True, but besides the point. There were beautiful aspects of Communist Russia too but the sum total of the effects of Islamic philosophy, like the doctrines that governed communist Russia, has been undoubtedly negative.

RichyBlacK:
Who is making such claim? Not me.

All I'm trying to pass across to your brother, Davidylan, is that Islam is not all about September 11. A host of what we enjoy today, stemmed from contributions by many Islamic scholars over a thousand years ago.

Those scholarly achievements came inspite of, not because of, Islam. Unless you can demonstrate that the fact these scholars were Muslim, in itself, explains their achievements.

No one thinks that Islam produces only gore and violence but that on balance, it represents a bulwark against progress.

RichyBlacK:
The singular issue you fail to realize in your question, is that the advancement of a civilization is not necessarily measured by its intention to conquer other peoples and pillage their resources. That yardstick of measurement is a fundamentally Western viewpoint. Unfortunately, such a hollow measure of advancement has gained much grounds since the industrial revolution.

You're talking bollocks as usual. Let me lay it out for you:

You claim Western colonisation is at fault for Islamic backwardness. Western colonisation of the Arab world for instance is effectively a product of the 1st world war.

If western colonisation is at fault, these places should have been as advanced as the West as of the 19th century, no be so? The Islamic golden age you talk of, which every Muslim likes trotting, is centuries away. . .  .what happened in the preceding centuries?

As far as the intent to conquer is concerned, you must be living in a cave. No religion has inspired as much attempts at conquest as Islam. When was the first Crusade and compare that to the first jihad.

RichyBlacK:
Thanks, I'll take a class in macroeconomics and maybe microeconomics too. Let me also suggest that you take a course on history, say, first 500 years of Islam.

Thanks once again.

The sum total of achievements in the Islamic world pales in significance when compared to the achievements of the Judeo-Christian world. Clutching at a brief era, helped to a large extent by Islamic conquest of significant parts of Europe and the utilisation of their intellectual resources. .  .you would be surprised how many of those Islamic scholars that were of Jewish origin.

A brief deviation from the norm, the norm being tyranny and impoverishment, is not a basis for claiming that Islam stands on par with Christianity.

RichyBlacK:
Only because your history lessons on Islam and Arabs started in 1901. Please go back to 600-1200 A.D. when Muslim scholars were translating the works of great Greek philosophers and the Roman Catholic church kept Europe under her grip - the Dark Ages, as referred to by historians.

Muslim scholars made great advances in medicine, astronomy and mathematics, while European nations were busy slaughtering each other. Even the numbering system in use today, in the universal language of mathematics, is called the Arabic numerals. You know why?

If Western colonisation is the primary cause of Muslim backwardness, Muslim nations should have been in the forefront of scientific and economic advances right up to the 20th century.

The very fact of Western colonisation in itself negates your point, how did the West get to colonise the Muslim world if they didn't attain economic/technological superiority in the first place? Ergo, you can't blame Western colonisation for their relative backwardness for their relative backwardness preceded, by centuries, Western colonisation, indeed, their relative backwardness made colonisation possible.

RichyBlacK:
True, only because of Western intent to control their resources.

Islam, like all other religions, has its ugly and dark sides. I do not advocate neither do I deny that such not-so-beautiful aspects exist.

There are at least 1.4 billion Muslims (1.8bn according to an Islamist poster I saw recently in London) and the West is at fault for the prevalence of illiteracy and tyranny in the Muslim world?

You would think that a beautiful philosophy should produce mainly 'good things' amongst its adherents not render them as some of the most backward people on earth.

RichyBlacK:
Have you read about Bilal?

Our mai guard for Naija knows about Bilal, maybe that makes him knowledgeable.

You folks prefer to sit in the West talking rubbish about how beautiful Islam is. Strangely, this ''beauty'' has produced some of the most undemocratic and illiterate nations on the planet.

debosky:
Who said Hamsik is a bigger risk than Arshavin Is Gorcuff available

If they're not bigger risks, why the preference for Arshavin? If it's a question of availaibility, all of the mentioned players are available if Wenger is keen. The money at stake, both in transfer fees and wages, should mean Wenger should be prepared to forgo this winter if that is what is will take, rather than waste money signing Arshavin.

All I said is that a 27 year old player who has driven his club to domestic victory as well as a UEFA Cup victory potentially adds more to Arsenal from day one than Gorcuff, Hamsik or Diego can on day one - they haven't won anything, they aren't regulars playing at the highest level for their countries so what do they have that Denilson and the others I've listed have?

The fact that he is 27 playing in the Russian league is a factor that should count against him, not in favour. Driving his club to victory in the domestic league indeed, and winning the Russian league or the UEFA cup makes him a better footballer than Diego?

Or is it playing regularly for the Russian team? Hamsik plays regularly for Slovakia, Diego and Gourcuff are capped for Brazil and France respectively.

Did Diaby not play in Ligue 1? Did Bischoff not play in the Bundesliga

Is Diaby as talented as Gourcuff? Is Bischoff any match for Diego? Gourcuff and Diego are the star talents in very strong leagues, is there a better playmaker in France than Gourcuff? Apart from Riberry, which playmaker in the Bundesliga can match Diego.

How many times have you even watched these 2 fellows I'm talking about or are you just posting like a blind man at a chess game?

We need something other than 'developing youth' - Arshavin has that quality plus the proven experience of winning in Europe, he therefore beats the others in comparison.

Yes,the experience of winning the UEFA Cup. How does that compare to the talents and proven abilities of the folks I mentioned?

HNIC:
Bet, if we were on the verge of landing any of the highlighted, it would have been another story.
Like , why do we want to splash on all these unproven players.

Who this idiot dey reply to?

''Like, why do we want to splash . . . . . '' Like, piss off.

debosky:
We have enough 'young quality' midfielders - Nasri, Denilson, Ramsey, Bischoff, Diaby, SONG ( ) amongst others.

We need a versatile, significantly proven player able to make immediate contributions. It's always a risk, but I'd rather risk with Arshavin than keep dillydallying.

Diego, Hamsik and Gourcuff are bigger risks than Arshavin? Go and sit in the dunce corner and wear Cristalz pants on your head.

Arshavin is what? 27? His only club experience is in the Russian league and you are comparing him to folks who have played in Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1.

Na women be the worst culprits.

davidylan:
click the "modify" button on the right hand corner of your post.

Can't seem to edit the question. Anyway, it's just to give the options as ''should'' or ''should not'' . . . . it's alright as it is.

davidylan:
No. Waste of resources, waste of valuable American lives, waste of goodwill . . . let the arab world solve the problem of Darfur themselves. I wonder if Ban Ki Moon is "outraged" about Darfur yet though.

They can repeat the Kosovo air campaign: stick to airstrikes, particularly targetted at the 'Arab' Khartoum sponsored militias. That way, loss of US lives will be minimal, if any.

In my view, the US can barely afford it, not just financially but in terms of military resources. US forces are spread too thin and the US can barely afford to sustain a new military campaign in a conflict that has no direct impact on US interests.

Ban Ki Moon is not interested in this one. I was watching the UN spokesperson bleat about Israel hitting a UN compound in Gaza and it was mentioned that the UN has loads of compounds in Gaza . . . . . . I wonder whether they have loads of such facilities in Darfur.

Na wa o, I never finish phrasing my question, come submit post. . . . . .how do I change it?

Sudan's government is increasingly fearful that the incoming US administration will resort to military intervention to end the six-year-old crisis in Darfur that has killed up to 200,000 people and left 2.7 million homeless, diplomatic sources in Khartoum say.

"There is a great need for us to sound the alarm again about Darfur," Hillary Clinton, who was endorsed as secretary of state yesterday, told the US Senate this week. "It is a terrible humanitarian crisis compounded by a corrupt and very cruel regime in Khartoum."

Clinton said the Obama administration, which takes office on Tuesday, was examining a wide range of options, including direct intervention in support of a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force, known as Unamid, which has struggled to make an impact after beginning operations last year.

"We have spoken about other options, no-fly zones, other sanctions and sanctuaries, looking to deploy the Unamid force to try to protect the refugees but also to repel the militias," Clinton said. "There is a lot under consideration." Clinton has previously asserted that the US has a "moral duty" to help Darfurian civilians.

The US accuses Khartoum's leadership of committing genocide in Darfur. Washington has eschewed direct military involvement since the crisis erupted in 2003, despite growing pressure to act from Sudanese insurgents, exiles, and evangelical Christian groups.

But in a surprise move last week, President George Bush ordered the Pentagon to begin an immediate airlift of vehicles and equipment for the peacekeeping force.

Alain LeRoy, head of UN peacekeeping operations, told the Security Council last month that violence in Darfur was intensifying and stepped-up international involvement was urgently required to avoid a descent into "mayhem".

Influential US-based pressure groups such as the Save Darfur Coalition and Enough are meanwhile demanding that US president-elect Barack Obama act swiftly to fulfil campaign pledges to take more robust action.

"I will make ending the genocide in Darfur a priority from day one," Obama said in April. He has also previously backed a toughening of sanctions and said the US might help enforce a no-fly zone.

"Obama is the [ruling] National Congress party's worst nightmare," said a diplomat in Khartoum. "They wanted [John] McCain and the Republicans to win. They thought they were pragmatists. They think the Democrats are ideologues. They haven't forgotten it was the Democrats who bombed them."

That was a reference to a retaliatory US cruise missile attack on a suspect pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in 1998, ordered by President Bill Clinton after al-Qaida attacked US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Sudan provided a base for the al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden, from 1991 until he moved to Afghanistan in 1996.

A source in Khartoum said Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, was especially alarmed by Obama's selection of Susan Rice, a former Clinton national security council adviser on Africa, as a cabinet member and US ambassador to the UN.

Rice has spoken passionately in the past of the need for US or Nato air strikes, or a naval blockade of Sudan's oil exports, to halt the violence in Darfur.

Referring to the 1994 Rwanda genocide, she said: "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."

Bashir felt only "fear and loathing" for Rice and had told aides: "I don't want to see her face here," the source said.

Khartoum's concerns about American intervention extend to southern Sudan, fuelled by reports, denied by the US, that Washington is arming the separatist Sudan People's Liberation Army.

The SPLA is the military wing of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement with which the north fought a 30-year civil war. Salva Kiir, the SPLM leader and Bashir's likely rival in elections due later this year, received red carpet treatment by Bush at the White House last week.

"The government knows the US does not arm the SPLA. They're already heavily armed," a Khartoum-based diplomat said. "But the US does train them. It helps with logistics, planning, and so on. And they (the SPLA) do need air defence. Whether to provide air defence to the south will be a key question for the Obama administration."

Much of this story seems badly sourced but what do you think of the overriding issue? Should the US pursue military intervention in Darfur?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/sudan-unamid-obama

If Arsenal were to sign Arshavin, I would be delighted because it will represent a monumental waste of money.

If you're looking for a quality young midfielder, you have the likes of Gourcuff,Diego and Hamsik.

[quote author=IGWE_USA link=topic=219013.msg3341741#msg3341741 date=1231976715]And so what?
If Naija is not neutral, will it make a difference. [/quote]You are asking whether the views of The Giant of Africa is worthwhile? The biggest black nation on earth, 150m strong. When Nigeria talks, the world shudders!

@Dayokanu

Did you see Uli Hoeness comment about Chelsea being up for sale at 1 Euro?

What is it about the Bavarians and their knack for voyeurism and unsolicited comments? You would think Bayern should concentrate on catching Hoffenheim, it's not like they will be amongst the potential bidders if Chelski was up for sale.

Lagosboy:
The UN General assembly president has called this a "Genocide" and you are psoting nonsense while people are been killed.

Since when did the UN General Assembly become the beacon of morality? Here is the UN General Assembly's view of the world:

Darfur: 300,000 dead = grave humanitarian crisis
Gaza : 1,000 dead = genocide

In related news:

KHARTOUM (AFP) — Sudanese warplanes bombed Darfur rebels hunkered down in the war-torn region as President Omar al-Beshir on Wednesday compared the six-year conflict to wars in Iraq, Gaza and Afghanistan.

Antonov bombers struck the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) near Muhajaria, a village in southern Darfur that is a stronghold of a rival group that signed a peace deal with Beshir's government, said the army and rebels.

"We bombed a group of rebels, who have no (peace) agreement with us in order to protect the lives of civilians. This is the army's job, to secure the lives of civilians," army spokesman Sawarmi Khaled told AFP.

Ali Wafi, a field commander from JEM, which last May marked history by becoming the first regional Sudanese rebel group to attack the capital, said the movement was trying to assess the casualties.

"The army bombed our troops near Muhajaria from Antonovs. So far we don't have a clear number of people who were killed or wounded," he told AFP by satellite phone, saying that he was speaking from Darfur.

Officials from the UN-led peacekeeping mission in Darfur confirmed a bombing one kilometre (less than a mile) southeast of Muhajariya on Tuesday and another against a village elsewhere in the south that wounded two people on Saturday.

Sudan's head of state, who is accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, delivered a defiant speech comparing the increasingly complicated conflict in Darfur with wars across the Muslim world.

"There is one battle -- in Darfur, in Iraq, in Gaza, in Somalia, in Afghanistan -- against the Jews and we are fighting one enemy," he told a village celebration about 45 kilometres (28 miles) north of Khartoum.

Fresh from a visit to Damascus, Beshir expressed full support for the leaders of Islamist movement Hamas, locked in devastating conflict with Israel in the Gaza Strip, where 1,001 Palestinians have been killed in 19 days.

He reiterated that Sudan would not accept any decision from the International Criminal Court, whose judges in The Hague could decide as early as this month whether to issue an arrest warrant against him.

"We will not agree with any decision from the ICC, the United Nations, the UN Security Council or any international organisation," Beshir said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiSwZhWIQAzCfAKGGGi4GK2RUH0g

JJYOU:
i heard some prof some years ago said the arabs treated their black slaves worse than the white man when someone asked him why we were told the arab think the black man is lower than them. so i am not surprised.

It's hard to define who is an Arab but a fair estimate of the Arab world's population is 300m, virtually the same as the US. Around 645,000 Africans were taken as slaves to the US, at least 10m Africans were taken as slaves to the Arab world. Compare the number of surviving blacks of slave descent in the Arab world to the number of surviving black Americans of slave descent and that should give you an idea as to the comparative treatment they received.

PS: Iran is not part of the Arab world.

Ndipe:
I am telling you that during the dotcom boom, it was still possible to borrow money from the bank and invest in stocks. You might not necessarily tell them of your intentions to do so, but then again, even if you were approved for a loan, and you had a collateral, tell me, what would compell them to withdraw your loan request at the 11th hour?

There is no way you can walk into a bank in the West and tell them you need a loan so you can buy shares and the loan will be approved. People can always deceive the bank for any purpose but that is besides the point. In Nigeria, people are not only telling the banks but the banks gladly participate and accept those stocks as collateral.

If I take out a £2000 overdraft so I can invest in the stock market, the banks haven't got a clue what I'm doing it with it. In Nigeria, people are telling bankers that they want to borrow millions of naira to invest in stocks and the loans were approved.

My own assertion is if Roman bought 42% in 2006 at $3.2bn of his $13bn Sibneft sellout fortune, what are the chances that he's really down . . .and the answer is . . . . very very slim!

In many way, everyone is conjecturing but this bit is clear, the chances that Roman hasn't seen his fortune plummet this past few months are extremely rare, what the heck is he, John Paulson?

Ndipe:
Actually, it was common in the USA to borrow money from banks and invest in the stock market, during the tech bubble. It's called "borrowing on margin." http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm

It's very risky, and a lot of people got burned in the process. I contemplated, and almost borrowed money to invest in stocks that I read would increase in value, but a former roommate cautioned me. It was a humbling experience for me.

Margin trading isn't the same as what was described on this thread, ordinary individuals borrowing money from banks to invest in the stock market. At the height of the boom, would your retail banks in the US lend you money to trade stocks? You can always open an online brokerage account and make whatever gambles you want , but you can't borrow from your banks for the same purpose.

The principal rule about investing in stocks is don't invest more than you can afford to lose. How can people be investing a huge chunk of their savings or even borrowing money to invest? Even by the purportedly lax lending standards in the West, I'll be astonished if a bank lent an ordinary individual money to invest in the market.

Like any bubble, once every Tom,Dick and Harry is interested in investing, you should know the market is peaking. I believe it was Rockefeller that said he knew trouble was brewing when his shoe shiner started talking about investing in the stock market and he took the prescient decision to get out before the 1929 crash.

It's a learning process, the pain caused by the losses will teach Nigerians about the downside risks and help check future bubbles . . . . . until the next lot of suckers.

@David

Have you seen the miracle of the walking corpse? I think it was a ''funeral'' procession which the movie stars weren't aware was being videoed.

The Religion of Peace adherents are getting their hating in early . . . . . how soon before Obama Derangement Syndrome catches on worldwide?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5510665.ece