₦airaland Forum

Sammiejokes:
“Section 80 (4) on the other hand, which confers on the legislature absolute power of control over public funds, states that: “No money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the Federation, except in the manner prescribed by the National Assembly.
“The word Manner confers absolute legislative discretion.

Don't conflate "National assembly" with individuals elected into the national assembly. Legislative discretion is only valid when the decision is made according to the standing rules of the house, not according to the whims of individual legislators because they are ranking officers. Femi does not have the right to allocate =N= 40 million to his constituency, the national assembly does!

EBLABOR:
REASONS WHY LINCOLN’S DREAM WASN’T RANDOM OR A RESULT OF ASSASINATION ATTEMPTS...bla bla bla.

Abeg, I no get time for one-trick-pony wey only sabi sound like broken record, ọga. Either you answer my question or continue to wallow in your ignorance. Your religion has fried your brain, clearly.

ifenes:
A verbal freedom fighter is what I meant,I won't die for anyone

I will always admire the principles behind anarchy. I just don't see it as practical, since the majority never seek your permission before they invade your territory. The only way to protect yourself; in fact, the only way humans have managed to survive the relentless extinction machinations of nature thus far, is by organising themselves into some form of governed groups with rules which always have some aspects that are tyrannical towards the ideals of individualism. One example is payment of taxes.

EBLABOR:
You did not understand what i meant, maybe you should read all the questions again and answer them.

There's is nothing supernatural about dreaming about one's assassination and then getting assassinated. Reality coinciding with dreams is a pretty routine and mundane thing. For a person like Abe Lincoln, the probability of having your dreams of assassination coincide with reality is conceivably exaggerated for reasons previously explained by AnakinSkywalker as follows:

AnakinSkywalker:
The argument is that Lincoln lived a life as president many times with little concern for security. He knew his life style and his action of freeing the slaves made almost a half of the country hate him. If Lincoln dreamt that he would be killed, it probably is because he knew a lot of people wanted to kill him. Before his assassination, twice he was almost killed. He was not oblivious of this fact.
You dream that you went to church on Sunday does not mean it was the dream that will make you go to church tomorrow. Or that you had any special revelations.

As a rule of thumb, and following the principles of Occam's Razor, there is usually no need for recourse to the supernatural if nature can perfectly explain an event.

Now, I have answered your question. You answer mine:
Again, can you list the instructions you claimed were in Abe's dreams?

ifenes:
An Anarchist is probably what I am. I have never seen a need for a government or mob rule,where the majority push their views about life on the minorities. A case where the 51% rules over the 49% is pure Tyranny.

There should be no country or god to die for.

I do agree with you, in principle...but we can create an ever-improvable government whose sole role would be to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Sadly, the only way to achieve that is by creating a majority with common views as yourself. Otherwise, your anarchy notwithstanding, the majority will still trample on you. Unless you're a masochistic anarchist who doesn't mind dying for nothing.

EBLABOR:
If a man wants to come to know God, he must first humble. The man must realize and accept that God owns the whole earth and is the only one from all goodness flow. If you are willing to accept this and humble yourself, then you would realize many things about the most high that your joy would be full.

A man only wishes to know those that wish to know a man. A man also assumes god knows how to find a man if god really wants to know a man.

If Jehovah is kind enough to warn, a man can choose to obey/disobey and bear the consequences or profits!

There is nothing kind about giving vague (unhelpful) warnings about the imminent assassination of an innocent man when you can easily stop it, but refuse to do so. Only a malignant sociopath would do such a thing!

The dream of Lincoln was in no way random because, it reflected exactly how he was killed. This was far from the time he had an assassination attempt. It is clear that his beloved wife wouldn't had want him to go if the threat to his life was as heavy as you say. there is hardly a President that people would not want to kill. if this was a random dream as a result of the hatred why would he be informed in a dream 1 week to the time of his assassination and not all along he has be hated ? would the dream be repeated three straight nights to close to his assassination ? would the dream reflect exactly how he was to be killed(not by mob or by poisioning) but by an assassin? in his biography why was it told of a persistent dream that haunted the president every night of his presidency because of the hatred of people for him? Why was there no such dreams until very close to his assassination?

Assassination means killing, usually for political reasons. Therefore, death by mob and poisoning can also be assassinations. What the dreams didn't mention was how, when, who and forestalling strategy. So the dreams were vague and unhelpful. The only way one could possibly interpret that as divine intervention is if your god were a sadistic sociopath.

Here is something beautiful God's word says. That Jehovah always showed mercy to men by speaking to them in dreams. Especially men in authority. To warn them especially against a danger, so that there can take necessary action. It is left to the man, to take action or to act in disregard to the instruction.

Can you list the instruction(s) in Abe's dream(s)?

Brother, you know the truth, It is no random dream

Yep, I know the truth...you're clearly deluded.

ifenes:
I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority,so I don't vote.

It is hard not to be intoxicated by the rich quixotism of anarchy; I speak from personal experience. Nevertheless, the tyranny of the majority, will always infringe on your individual rights, whether you vote or not. As such, you will only match/subdue the force of that tyranny with an opposing majority. Basically, the bigger the group, the easier it is to negotiate any particular individual rights that matter to you without being trampled upon.

UncleSnr:
What I mean is that, Religion has always been a yardstick for electing a public office holder here in Nigeria not minding if he/she is competent enough.
So, I am using that same yardstick on a non-religious person.
Do you think a non-religious person will have the tendency to perform better?

No, I'll not vote for a person because they are irreligious. A non religious person will not be any more/less inclined to perform better than a religious one.

UncleSnr:
NB: You shouldn't use his or her competence level as a criteria cos those already voted for have shown their competence and incompetence in the past and present.

It is not clear what you mean when you suggest that the person's competence shouldn't be considered.

Do you mean to ask if I would vote the person because they are atheist, irrespective of their adeptness? Or do you mean to ask if the person's atheism will play a role in my decision, supposing the person is competent enough?

If you mean the former, then most definitely not! I'll not vote for someone because they are atheist. That's the stupid herd-shepherd mentality that has brought us here. "Our pikin, our pikin", "Musulumi ne, musulumi ne"!

On the other hand, if you mean the latter, then I'll most definitely vote for the person, because all that really should count is competence, not professed belief (or lack thereof) in any religion.

AnakinSkywalker:
Sorry if you do not understand "probably" and the principle of confirmation bias. Also, reasoning like you, I can make the fact that I just farted be a sign. A sign that something is about to happen. Why don't you think it was the devil that revealed it to him. Or Bhudah. Or a Genie. People who reason like this make explaining christianity to atheist worse!!!

I am not an atheist. But I will rather be one than to be this quick to react without thinking. Just because I tell you what their arguments are you are quick to believe I am an atheist. People (especially Nigerians) with hasty conclusions, ignorance and quick reactions as opposed to deep thought. Nigerians react based on observed copied behaviors. They don't think.

Read my reply, I told you what their arguments are. You raised a point and asked what they think. I endeavored to inform you about their argument to fill up the void of ignorance. Instead of analyzing the argument, you already label me what I am not. Shame. Big fat shame on what religion causes. How it erases humanity and promotes prejudice. God himself is not prejudicial. If he is then he is not worth being God. Even God reasons properly. As a matter of fact he admonishes people to reason and think. And not just react from copied/imbibed behaviors and reactions.

Lincoln dreamt that he will be killed, greeted someone differently, does not prove GOD. You will make a mess of yourself. Finally STOP TRYING TO PROVE GOD. NATURE ITSELF IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT IT IS BASED ON SOME PRINCIPLES, LAWS AND PROCESSES OF A GRAND DESIGNER. Calling Atheists out using Lincoln is only hilarious but will get you no where. The possessed slave girl in the bible also predicted people's future, saw omens and all that in Acts 16.

Mentioning "Jehovah" cares is like most cheating, thieving Nigerians who call their business "God is Good Ventures" or "God's Blessing Nigeria Limited" or "Jehovah Jireh Company Limited" but their businesses never expand. They think they can mention God amidst cheating, lying, selling fake products and stealing. At the end companies like Coke, Shell, Chevron, IBM, go international. They might not have "God" in their names, they are more sincere than those who call "God", "Jehovah".

Finally, just because it is "reported" that all these happened does not even make it true. It could be the conspiracy of testimonies of people who want to make him look great! So let us not start being unreasonable because we can type and hit "submit" on nairaland.

You have demonstrated that you have regard for objectivity. Well done!

It is not clear to me, how the OP arrived at a supernatural conclusion. If the events leading to Abe's murder, his dreams in particular, were supernatural, then what purpose did they serve? What kind of cruel god will burden you with haunting images of your own death, without meaning to avert it? I mean, to what end? Did god intentionally allow Abe to have a dream about his death, and then allow him die so that god could demonstrate its existence to atheists at some distant future?

In my life time, I've dreamt about my own assassination no less that 2 times that I can remember, and I don't even have remotely as many enemies as Abe would have had. I may end up dying a natural death or I may very well be assassinated, who knows? None of those outcomes will prove that my dreams were prescient in any way whatsoever, because I have also had many other random dreams that may seem prescient, but are demonstrably pointless (just like dreaming about your death and eventually dying). This is no joke: I once dreamt that I was walking to my classroom after arriving school. Guess what happened the next morning? I walked to my classroom after arriving school. What do you suppose that proves?

felixomor:
Fantastic logical argument. No doubt.

Thanks.

But for a little twist: You can use the PC game as an example for "Limited to physical processes" because it has an "off and on" button.
So when u use "limited" which also implies "resides within or trapped within" for the consciousness, then the scientist or the doctor will argue and ask where is the On and Off button for consciousness?

Afterall, if consciousness was limited to any organ or mechanism, Medics will just simply "Switch the on button" (As done for the PC game), by stimulating the "consciouness centre of the brain" for those patients they are trying to bring back from unconsciousness to consciousness. It will prevent many deaths and revive many patients who are currently on life support machines.

But thats not the case.

I don't think there is any justification in reducing physical processes to "on/off" switches. There are many physical processes, that, once set in motion, cannot simply be "switched off", as it were. E.g. Nuclear bombs. Presently, another example of physical processes that cannot just be switched off at will is HIV/AIDS, in spite of how hard medics and scientists have tried.

Now consider this: Given that we have a panoply of real world examples of physical/non-physical processes; and it is clear that non-physical processes always depend on physical ones to function, the enormity of your challenge is thus, to show by falsifiable example/argument that there is a non-physical process that can function independently of physical ones. Feel free to use any tool or analogy at your disposal. This is the only way you can demonstrate the possibility of consciousness not being "limited" to physical processes.

felixomor:
"it is limited to physical processes"

Then in another post "It is not a physical process".

Chei, what else will I say again?
How else can i Show contradiction again?

It is well.

Process: A series of things working holistically in pursuit of a certain end

Physical Process: The mechanical/chemical/biological operations of a series of things made of fundamental particles (or waves, if you like) to achieve a certain goal. e.g. Auto fanning of heated CPUs, Chemical reactions, walking to the bathroom.

Non-physical process: The operations of things that are not made of fundamental particles (or waves) to achieve a certain goal. E.g. Execution of computer games, thinking, dreaming, CPUs presenting solutions to PDEs.

The question then is; is it possible for something to not, it self, be a physical process, yet be limited to (i.e. constrained by) physical processes?

Absolutely! Interaction between virtual characters in PC games is non-physical, as no fundamental particles feature in the the forms/appearances or characteristics of the said characters. Yet, for you to perceive these characters, you need physical processes like an electricity powered monitor with speakers connected to a PC/game console which can run the storage medium within which these characters exist.

In light of the foregoing, I can say interaction of characters in PC games is not a physical process, and I can as well say interaction of characters in PC games is limited to physical processes (i.e. Running CPUs) , without fear of contradiction. Hope you can now see why you shouldn't claim those statements are contradictory.

naijadeyhia:
I think you are the one with zero evolution knowledge.

I don't presume to know much about evolution, but it is clear that I know a little more than you.

If Dinosaurs were oviparous according to science of course because for u guys science is always right even when they did not witness the dinosaur age and have no internal organ specimen or reproductive specimen but just bone samples. So with bone samples they were able to conclude that dinosaurs were oviparous? Interesting. .....

https://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/800px-maiasaura_embryo.jpg
The above is an image of the fossilised embryo of a Maiasaura in its egg shell.

Just an advice: Please do your research before making comments that mark you out as an idiot!!

U do realise that in an egg there are over 5 billion different cells and DNA profiling that work together to gradually replicate an already existing Blueprint of what the fully form chick should look like and when there is an error in this DNA sequence it would result in a mutation and that mutation is regarded as an error and disadvantageous so this rules out the law of natural selection.

Not all mutations are disadvantageous! Read my previous post on beneficial mutation here, complete with peer-reviewed citations

Evolution is seen as a statistical impossibility based on its own summation, DNA sequence and its process. I already gave a break down of this on another thread. The chances of evolution occuring acording to statistics is 1 in a billion billion trillion. Which in one word translates to it being impossible.

Did you pull that number out of your arse? Please provide the peer reviewed articles from which you're extracting this garbage.

Sorry but you are so wrong

I'm not!!

naijadeyhia:
You need to think deep first before just answering bro.

Eggs serve to incubate and protect a growing bird from dangers in nature. For what you are speculating to happen the way you assume then a live chicken ought to have first evolved and over time realising the dangers its exposed to would evolve a shell like casing during growth to protect it while it matures enough.

So for you to say an egg came first is wrong. Even as it is in humans so it is in eggs...they have some sort of unbilical cord attached which they feed from while within the egg as their food source is already within the egg while they grow. Plus the chicken in the egg is first a white goo and need the egg to keep this goo together. How did this goo know how to transform itself from just liquid goo to a life form which would be that particular specie all the time.

Its most unlikely that a chain of random occurrences would evolvs or mutate into a chicken which would grow into a female and another random occurrence which would grow another into male and they would mate and such a mating would yield anything if they were not of the same specie. For example you cannot cross an ostrich with a chicken or a dove with a parrot.

You either didn't read the question, or you're ignorant about evolution. The question asks which came first between birds and eggs. Birds are a particular, but not a discrete point on the evolutionary continuum of life. Birds have predecessors (called dinosaurs). These predecessors were oviparous, meaning they laid eggs.

This suggests that the fundamental structure of eggs predates the evolution of dinosaurs into the birds of today. Logically, therefore, the egg came before the bird.

All these are statistically impossible. Mathematicians say the evolutionary theory is an impossible occurrence based on statistics.

Do you know the difference between a statistical impossibility and a statistical improbability? Please, furnish us with the peer reviewed articles of these Mathematicians who say evolution is an impossibility.

Listen to Weah96, he knows what he's saying! 'Atheist' is not the title you receive after earning an evolutional biology certificate.

That said, I can attempt this one. Eggs came before birds, of course. Dinosaurs are the predecessors of birds and they too were oviparous. In fact, oviparity is believed to be the premordial mode of reproduction for multicellular living things, including plants. Most ancestral species are/were oviparous. Viviparity evolved pretty recently on evolutionary time scales, probably because for certain species, it provided the baby better protection from predators.
Anyway, this is a crude attempt at an answer. For a more comprehensive response, you should probably seek out the evolutional biologist in the house.

Pidggin:
Hell is not hospitable, why should I wish this on anyone?

Congrats, you've just demonstrated that you have a more humane sense of morality than your god who wishes to condemn more than half of humanity to such a place for whimsical reasons such as non-belief in its existence. I therefore wonder why anyone would want to worship such a god.

Pidggin:
I wish there was nothing like atheism in this world

Why?

winner01:
People should notice that atheists never discuss how atheism would improve, strengthen, or otherwise change theirs or others’ lives for the better. Instead they spend their whole lives criticizing their Creator and religion.

To suppose you will find atheists going about telling you what atheism will do for humanity is to betray a staggering conceptual misapprehension of atheism. It is not an ideology with a set of tenets on how to live your life or treat humanity, it is just simply an admission of apathy towards god.

On the other hand, there are many atheists who do remarkable things around the world; for example, some dedicate their time and resources to eradicating polio and malaria, some are trying to connect billions of people to the internet for free, some are just people who help others in whatever way they can. I doubt, however, that it is their atheism that motivates them. I think rather, they are more motivated by their intrinsic love for humanity! As modest as my personal contributions to the betterment of other people are, I've never once thought of doing them in the name of atheism, so you stand a better chance finding the real slim shady than finding what atheism has contributed to humanity.

Also, according to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. We have also seen the successes of countries such as USA, UK and others, that have unofficially labeled themselves as Christian countries in the past.

Note: I’ve not included the successes of any other religion here, I’m simply emphasizing the products of Christianity.

I'm not even going to indulge you in this silly pissing contest. It seems you derive shattering orgasms from identifying with the achievements of other people because they practice your faith. I frankly don't consider that a productive way to contribute to humanity.

So what exactly has atheism done for humanity and why do atheists terribly want people to join them in their irrational unbelief in our supreme Creator?

Atheism has done nothing for humanity.

Finally, you should refrain from making sloppy generalisations. I personally think you shouldn't become an atheist, because you will probably be a very dangerous one who would lack moral inhibitions; since as you've made apparent, you always require a dictatorial arbitrator to perform the functions of your brain on your behalf.

Yes! In China. ATMs in China are notorious for padding withdrawals with counterfeit notes to the extent that all taxi drivers have UV bulbs in their cars to double check whatever payments they receive.

babadee1:
There are parts of this country where the violence is definitely out of control. The govt does not yet have a grasp on the criminal activities of those Fulani herdsmen or those Ijaw militants. But there was a time when the govt did not have any answer for Boko Haram either and that situation has been improving steadily. The key is not to lose hope. Our major problem in this country is tribalism, we see ourselves as foreigners to one another, encouraging hostility to the point where one tribe can invade the territory of another on a whim and wreak havoc. Nigeria has a unique problem in this regard and it is fixable but it will take a lot of time and effort, as well as positive constructive thinking.



Again, there are still a lot of problems in Nigeria. But there is probably only one thing you need to remember, there are more millionaires in dollars living in Nigeria today than at any other point in her history. There is more wealth in Nigeria than in any other African country in the world, and more and more of that wealth has nothing to do with exposure to government. Developed countries were also developing at a point in time, they were developed by innovative and hardworking citizens not by their governments. Blaming govt and waiting for govt to do everything for us is a mindset problem for Nigerians. We need to do better for ourselves by ourselves instead of just complaining.
Out of all those salient problems which you have listed which one are you going to try to solve my brother? I think I have said enough.

Fantastic response!

plaetton:
I kinda get your point, but I disagree.

You can't rationalize FAILURE, make the rationalization of failure a sub-culture, and then expect to compete favorably in a competitive world.

If we continue to rationalize FAILURE, that mentality Rob's us of the necessary impetus needed to make corrections and move forward.

Just entertain yourself with the plethora of excuses our leaders at every level rationalize for their many many failures.

How many of our past and present leaders have ever ever admitted a mistake, failure, a regret for their policies and actions ?

None.

You seem to have misapprehended my intention. I never wished to propose such a dangerous notion as rationalising failure. In fact, it seems we both agree about owning up to one's failures. I've only gone a step further to suggest that the reason people naturally refrain from doing so is because of society's irrational hostility towards it.

My understanding of failure is captured in the following scenario:

Suppose in my attempt to achieve a particular goal (goal x), I approach it using methods A and B. At the end of my attempt, the goal remains unachieved. My ideal response should be. "I failed at achieving goal x because methods A and B were flawed. As such, I will now try methods C and D." This way, progress has been made.

On the other hand, if I expect people's reactions to be harsh criticisms, castigation and denigration, my response to my own failure would most probably be denial and an unhealthy appetite for other people's failures. This here, is why Nigerian leaders will continue to be in denial of their failures. Because Nigerians can't wait for them to fail, and then, pounce on them mercilessly! We've cultivated a kind of vindictive culture that makes mediocrity the easiest option. By the way, many natural geniuses are in practice, mediocre, because they are comfortable succeeding in small things, for fear of failure. And that fear stems from the perception that failure is a thing to be ashamed of, and this is mostly cultural.

Another good example.
Nigeria is a FAILED state.
Each time I say that , someone is quick to tell me that it's not, despite a universe of evidence pointing to the obvious fact.

As for Nigeria being a failed state. I suppose we don't agree on the definition of terms. To me, a failed state is one which has lost control of its economic and political existence. As far as I know, Nigeria hasn't lost economic/political control yet. I may concede that it is a weak state, but it is definitely not weak enough to be failed.

plaetton:
They raised me well.
That's why I never failed at any exams.

Keep making excuses for failure, and keep glorifying failure.
That's why Nigeria is today a failed state.

Plaetton, Nigeria is not quite a failed state, but it is very nearly one. Be that as it may, Nigeria is where it is today because we are culturally hostile to failure. Nigerians don't necessarily glorify failure, they just pretend it doesn't exist because we treat it as a taboo. You only need to speak with carryover students from Nigerian universities to understand how society ostracises people who have failed...heck, you just have to read some comments on this thread. Alas, when failure is seen as a bad thing instead of the inescapable exemplification of human imperfection; as a thing of shame, instead of a thing to learn from, we are bound to shy away from trying (for fear of failure), then pretend we can't fail.
So you see, It's not the glorification of failure that makes Nigeria this mediocre, it's precisely the opposite: hostility towards failure.

"Failure is the condiment that gives Success its flavour" Truman Capote

"Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm" Winston Churchill

"There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: The fear of failure" Paulo Coelho.

Bottom line, there is no shame in failure, so fail and fail and fail until you succeed!

You on the other hand, wey carry person failure for head like say na you pay em school fees...nna, na wa oo! Shame on you!!

Igboic:
But the crime of an individual can be used to characterize all members of his ethnic group, the actions of few individuals can also be seen to reflect the will and stance of their people, that will explain why crimes with Igbo names as perpetrators are seen as an Igbo bashing fest in NL

Wrong! Crimes, like achievements, know no ethnic identities. As such, just as the achievements of an individual must only be credited to that individual, so too must their misdeeds. It is not clear to me how I have suggested otherwise.

and a coup by few Igbo elements was seen as an Igbo coup and used as a justification to unleash near genocide on the Igbo people.

So, what's your point? Did I order the genocide?

with hypocrites like you nowhere to be found in such threads,

The funny thing is that people like you think themselves intelligent, where as their folly is bare for all to see.

As for the ad hominems, I would normally defend myself, but I am sure you know me and my antecedents so well that you are the indisputable authority on my biography.

Abagworo:
Whatever you think it is, reducing the nationality of an individual’s achievement to the lowest decimal possible - one's tribe - to me does not elevate nor strengthen such honors. Rather than strength, it all points to something strange, a feeling of inferiority and fear. I thus see such actions as unconscious acts of perpetuating a self-imposed and unwarranted sense of marginalization – a victim mentality syndrome that only reinforces negative attitudes and isolation.

One's tribe isn't the lowest decimal possible, one's individuality is, and that's the only thing that counts when accounting for individual achievements. It is risible, otherwise, for any group; tribe, club, country or religion to claim the achievements of individuals. The achievements of an individual are simply that individual's!

dunkem21:
.. But Wizkid told Linda same and we all cheered ..


.. Soyinka insulted the first lady and called somebody's wife shepopotamus* and we hailed


What changed

Rape is a serious crime. Anybody who threatens to assault and rape another should be locked up in solitary confinement.

dunkem21:
.. But Wizkid told Linda same and we all cheered ..


.. Soyinka insulted the first lady and called somebody's wife shepopotamus* and we hailed


What changed

Rape is a serious crime. Anybody who threatens to physically assault and rape another is a sexual predator, and must be locked up in solitary confinement.

hotwax:
Gud news..however we should consider natural sources.

Wind, Solar and aquatic.

All these gas powered stations are at the mercy of haters and bigots. They will blow pipelines.

I guess you mean 'renewable' because gas is also a natural source of energy.

Blackfire:
u mean like in a dream or vision or .... ?

Troll

Blackfire:
are u more wise than the shariah court? Or the mullah that carved the hisba out ?

...wait are u trying to say Muslim ummah is wrong ? Ok i get it u are from the south..

You've said much, but failed to answer my question. I repeat, has Allah asked you to arrest people on its behalf?

Blackfire:
I support the hisba police, this is a month of fasting, and anyone who refuse to fast, must not just be arrested but jailed. . .

Has Allah asked you to arrest people on its behalf?

Dejideji1:
Yeye guy calling someone a bokoharam it seems you didn't consider your moniker before commenting. Between you and I, who is more likely to be a Boko haram member? Or who is more likely to be affiliated with bokoharam.?

No, I didn't consider my moniker because I'm intelligent enough to know that if names made people boko haram, Muhammed Ali, Barack Obama and Salman Rushdie would be Boko haram. Unfortunately for you, names don't make people boko haram. But you wouldn't know that because you're obtuse, just like boko haramites.

On the other hand, I haven't threatened to make someone become history for attacking my belief (or lack of), you have! That's what makes people boko haram...that's what makes YOU boko haram.