₦airaland Forum

For some reason I didn't get notified of your mentions Tintingz. But yes, your argument about nothing is pretty much accurate. I know of no possible to conceive of "nothing", so I think it is pure folly to even talk about the characteristics of nothing, and what can come of it.

futurerex:
Have you ever seen a he-goat chasing another he-goat

Yes. And now, even you can't unsee that
https://eyesonnepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/male-goat-and-male-goat.jpg

Also, it might interest you to know that in his book, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", author, Bruce Bagemihl, has scientifically documented more than 450 species that express homosexual behaviour.

okway:
lol nigga shut the Bleep upppp. Jealousy! Yorubas rule!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fi ara balẹ bọbọ yi! Awọn baba wa sọ wipe "Aipe, 'tirẹ niyi' ni mbi aiye ninu". O yẹ ki o ni irẹlẹ ni to ri wipe igberaga o da!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
If your Yoruba is rusty, here's the rough translation for you:
Calm down, guy! Our forefathers say "refusing to admit 'this is your contribution (to others)' is what drives people towards indignation". You should have humility because arrogance is bad!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like you've intentionally set out to vex and annoy people, so my advise to you is to go and adopt the admirable virtues of the Yoruba traditions before you brag about your wonderful, superior and enviable Yorubaness. You don't amount to anything of worth to me, so I've got nothing to be jealous about!

Ihatepork:
Some things have to be said. No apologies or sugarcoating. I see a trend here and credit has to be given.

- John Boyega played Finn in star wars

- Moe Sasegbon played wonder woman in Justice league

- David Oyelowo played Martin Luther King in Selma.

- Mo Abudu/Niyi Akinmolayan just broke records with Wedding party 2 .

- Some of Mo Abudu/Kemi Adetiba's records with Wedding party still stand.

- Wizkid defied all odds to beat the likes of Drake and Jay-z to MOBO awards. Also became the first African artist to perform at Royal Albert Hall.

-Davido recently broke records for the highest grossing Nigerian concert.

Both of them are the biggest artistes in Africa today

-Now Funke Akindele just did another one with avengers


Even the highest grossing Nollywood movies were produced/directed by Yorubas. Kunle Afolayan, Niki Akinmolayan, Tunde Kelani, Biyi Bandele, Kemi Adetiba, Ebony life studios. Some otolos saying they control nollywood don't even know things have changed. We boss that nollywood now. They think we are still in the era of Ada the serpent. Lmao

It's also not a coincidence that all the Nigerians who have won the Grammys are Yorubas. I won't even talk about Fela

See, no one comes close to Yorubas in entertainment. You can't tell me nothing. Funny how we barely even brag about it. Oh well...I just did.

Now

Sketches of a Yoruba loser!

When the petty has no notable achievements, they start to associate their race/tribe with success in order to appropriate the successes of other individuals to themselves.

All the individuals you've mentioned are successful because of their individual brilliance, good promoters and associates. Their tribal affiliation has got nothing to do with it. You don't know anything about how all these people got to their positions in life, you don't know what roles members of other tribes have played in their successes, you know nothing of their struggles, of their failures, of their helpers, of their friends, families, YOU KNOW NOTHING, PERIOD! But like a shameless loser, you're quick to claim their successes as if you contributed anything to their lives by virtue your tribal affiliation. Even if you did, that would just make you a tribal bigot.

Please go make a name for yourself instead of trying to leach off other people's achievements.

buffalowings:
I'm agnostic

Good for you

So your beliefs are fairy tales

I don't have any (religious) beliefs.

ArewaFanatic:
## What I intended to show from my own end was that a second opinion exists regarding the selection of Sa'ad. Your initial claim that the prophet selected it himself was a sweeping one which carries only half the truth.
Now that it has been conceded, there is really no point pushing ahead on this front.

(1) Choose your words carefully. My words were that "he appointed the leader of banu Aws who had converted to Islam". These are similar words used in the Hadith by Aisha. Just because you do not agree with this version of events doesn't mean I was putting out half truths. No matter who suggested Sa'd, the buck stopped with Muhammad. He wasn't just some dispassionate bystander observing things unfurl. He was actively involved, and, was the most influential player in the decision making process.
(2) If it was your goal to show that there is another version of events, then you weren't forthcoming about that goal. You instead accused me of twisting facts, yet, you failed to show which facts I twisted. So, even though you claim "it has been conceded", I find no concession to make on this note, as there was nowhere I denied the existence of alternate versions!

## Any man would surely be aware that they had to be gotten rid of (through either banishment or execution). It hardly requires a genius to discern that.

No, not any man! Just a man well versed in the art of statesmanship in 7th century Arabia; and a skilled statesman, Muhammad was!

## Could you list any WHOLE TRIBE that was expelled? I am certainly not aware of any.

Prior to the extermination of Qurayzah, he had previously banished banu Qaynuqa and banu Nadir from Madina.

## While I must admit that your view is a well grounded and coherent one, there are other equally logical views. I would argue that it was obvious to even the Qurayza that Sa'ad will judge them harshly. His history with Muhammad (saw) was after all not hidden to them. He had fought on the prophet's side before. They probably regarded him as better than all the others (given that he was an ally). Sa'ad however shocked them prefering the safety of Madina over alliance. To suggest that the prophet was 'deftly playing everyone' therefore will be too much of a gross misrepresentation.

According to the version of events that you support, it was not obvious to banu Qurayzah that Sa'd would judge them harshly. They apparently thought otherwise. And no, I don't think it is too much of a gross misrepresentation, or any kind of misrepresentation to suggest Muhammad deftly played everyone, because that is exactly what he did. That's what anyone skillful in the arts of statesmanship would do, should the opportunity present itself. The use of deception in war was not foreign to him. That was how the battle of the trench was won, after all.

## Why not visit what you wrote earlier then? You surely made a statement along the lines of "Muhammad extolled their prophets highly but picked up fight when they refused to acknowledge the superiority of his religion" (This is a paraphrase by the way. I'm having troubles loading the verbatim wording)

Your paraphrasal shows you misunderstood that point. You seem to think I suggested Muhammad tried to force the Jews to become Muslims, but this wasn't at all my meaning. My point was that he proselytised to them, and often engaged them in debates, but they simply didn't take his religious claims seriously. They, in fact, enjoyed ridiculing him because they knew his knowledge of their religion was quite superficial. Naturally, this made him frustrated with them. He could never have attempted to compel them to become Muslims, as this would have outrightly violated the Medina constitution and put him in a bad place. The point here was not to show that he fought them because they rejected his religion, but to show that there was already conflict brewing between his community and theirs. These events contribute to a more comprehensive sketch of the campaign against the Jews of Medina.

## Of course there was room for repentance. The article itself listed two men (Zabir Thabit and Amr ibn Su'd) who repented and were granted amnesty. It will do you a lot of good to read it again.
I'm willing to concede that the whole tribe might not receive a state pardon if they had repented. Granting them one would sure have been a daft political move. There is no reason to think they would not have betrayed the state again.

I think you meant Zabir ibn Bata? In the case of Zabir, he never repented or anything of the sort. Thabit interceded on his behalf because of a favour Zabir had done for him in the past. In fact, after his pardon, he still insisted to be killed, and he was killed. As for Amr, he wasn't pardoned because he sought penitence. He was pardoned because someone had heard him argue against his tribe's betrayal of Muhammad when it was in vogue to do otherwise. Read your own source carefully!

As a side note, I find the hyperboles in your statement a bit funny. They seem to point toward a sort of 'machine gun tactic'. Those spared were not 'perceived' to be innocent, they were 'proven' to have been. The 'hundreds' executed were traitors who would have received a similar judgement in any society (even a modern one).

The emboldened is preposterous! There are several hadiths in which it was said that the executed individuals were selected based on whether they had developed pubic hair or not. Now, even if we are to assume that all the grown ups of banu Qurayzah were willing traitors in this unfortunate turn of events (this is of course, statistically impossible), are we to also believe that young boys who didn't know any better were also traitors because they already had pubic hair? It is not even conceivable that all the grown ups who were executed were traitors either. We know of the case of Amr who was spared because he was a dissenting voice. In fact, this only happened because someone heard him dissent. This does not mean his was the only dissenting voice. There might have been others whom history has no record of. The victors (Muslims) wrote most of the story. We have no real historical recollection of what all the executed members of Banu Qurayzah thought or said. They weren't individually given fair trial. The leadership of their tribe was tried, and they were all guilty by association. How dare you casually accuse them of being traitors without any consideration given to the lack of evidence? I'm shocked by your nonchalance! It is simply a blatant lie that the same would happen in a modern society. I, for one, am pleased that our formal sense of justice has evolved to the extent that we don't decimate tribes by their associations with guilty parties; and I certainly am pleased people like you aren't the ones formulation our legal codes.

## It really is not clear at all sir. Ibn Ishaq's statement 'they sided the Quraysh and fought against the prophet' was a general one. Providing arms and intelligence (which the Qurayza did) could be viewed as one way of fighting against the prophet. This was pretty much explained in section 5 of the article.

"Then they (the Quraish) resolved: ‘Send to B. Qurayza that we will not give them a single man, and if they want to fight let them come out and fight.’"

The text above is an excerpt from Ibn Ishaq's account. Twist it how you want, but it only implies one thing: The Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to physically fight the Muslims.

It will appear so sir. Good evening.

Good evening!

ArewaFanatic:
Fine then. Here are a few of them:
1. Sa'ad Bn Mu'adh (RA); the companion who passed judgment on the Jews of Qurayza was not appointed by Muhammad (saw). The Jews themselves selected him (thinking he would be lenient) since he was formally their ally.

The question of who it was that appointed Sa'ad is not exactly as clear cut as you claim. This much is captured even in Islamic sources. See pp. 250 of "Muhammad: His Character and Conduct" by Adil Salahi, where it is stated that:

"When the siege started to bite hard at them, the Qurayzah sent a message to the Prophet, which stated that they were willing to surrender and accept whatever ruling he made against them. The Muslims of the Aws spoke to the Prophet, pleading for the Qurayzah because they were their allies. The Prophet said to them: “Will you be happy if a man from among you gives the judgement?” They said: “Yes, we will.” The Prophet then assigned this task to Sa'd ibn Muadh. A different report mentions that the Prophet told the Qurayzah to choose their judge from among his Companions, and they chose Sa'd, because he was their ally and they hoped that he would be lenient."

What is clear from the above is that the Muhammad only allowed that they chose a judge from among the Muslims, who was also a member of banu Aws. The reason I am inclined to believe that Muhammad influenced the choice of Sa'd, aside from the fact that one of [url=http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/147-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2019.%20Jihad%20and%20Expedition/12731-sahih-muslim-book-019-hadith-number-4370.html]Aisha's narrations[/url] clearly states this much, is that from a political viewpoint, Muhammad was well aware of what needed to be done to banu Qurayzah. Before this event, he had previously banished other Jewish tribes with which pretexts for grievances existed. There would probably have been a fear that the leniency of banishment could have passed a message that the Muslims were weak, if not outrightly encourage cooperation amongst the banished tribes to dislodge the Muslims from Medina. Whatever be the case, Muhammad knew that the punishment had to be harsh as a deterrence. His history with Sa'd was also an assurance that Sa'd had become more Muslim than Aws. The prophet, knew, in essence, what banu Qurayzah and the interceding members of banu Aws didn't; that Sa'd wouldn't be lenient in his judgement. So, he must have deftly played everyone to agree to the preponderance of chief of Aws' judgement.

2. Prophet Muhammad (saw) never demanded that Medinite Jews recognize Islam as superior to their own religion. Long before even he entered the town, he had always extolled Jewish prophets claiming he was a successor in the line of prophethood (gentile prophets included).

I don't recall mentioning that Muhammad demanded such.

3. All of the Qurayza Jews were not punished. Repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardon. The article I provided a link to explains that in detail.

While all of Qurayzah Jews were not executed, it is absolute nonsense that repentant ones who came and sought forgiveness got pardoned. The ones that were pardoned were either ones perceived not to be "involved in the treachery" or ones on whose behalf some of the prophet's companions interceded. This much is written in the link you shared. There was no room for repentance on that day. It was antecedence, not repentance that saved the ones that didn't die. Nevertheless, it is recorded that those who were executed were in the hundreds.

4. The strategy of the Meccan pagans was not that Qurayza finish off the Muslims. They are too few and isolated for that. All that was their job in the war was to collect intelligence and create divisions within the many groups in the town.
The Meccans in fact launched direct attacks and tried to take over the town. Muhammad's (SAW) cousin led an Army which defeated them several times.

Banu Quarayzah were also expected to physically attack the Muslims. I'm not sure you read the link you provided. Check section 4. It is clear from Ibn Ishaq's account that the Meccans expected banu Qurayzah to also fight alongside them.

It would appear these are enough sir. Go get yourself some knowledge of history in seventh century Arabia. Half baked analysis are not helpful at all.

It appears we both need to get ourselves some knowledge of history.

ArewaFanatic:
Your interesting twist of facts is quite funny and very sadly shallow. Given the length of your post however, I will not waste my time refuting any of it. It will be better if you can read a real Muslim view of what happened. The article below might be of help:

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/

Could you point out, specifically, which facts I twisted? It's not helpful to just make accusations without highlighting where I went wrong.

yellow237:
maybe for ur Islamic demented brain it is not preaching,but to we Christians u ar just trying to brainwash us,so plss take it to were u will be welcomed without insult....

If you practice any religion, you're already brainwashed!

lagostokd:
The word 'Islamophobia' was invented by Iranian fundamentalists in 1970s in analogy to Xenophobia. The aim of the word is to declare Islam inviolate. It is strictly used to intimidate critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism into silence.

Only the ignorant can be bamboozled by your fascist propaganda word 'Islamophobia'

If that's the aim of the word, it clearly hasn't worked on me. Nevertheless, I also understand the difference between critiquing dubious claims, and habouring irrational fear for people who promulgate such claims. They are not to be feared or hated. They are to be debated.

Every sane person knows that it is more enjoyable to live in countries/regions/cities with Christian values than that with Islamic values.

To make such a sweeping statement, you either must have a monopoly on the definition of "sane" or, otherwise, that of "enjoyable". Since, at least, one of those definitions is subjective, I call bullshit on your claim.

yellow237:
agentofallah pls we dont need ur preaching here take it to ur Muslim brothers,cos all this thing u ar saying ar just trash and ur own make up story.....one more thing don't quote ur Quran to us cos even that contradict all ur lies

I don't suppose you know the meaning of "preaching".

buffalowings:
Isn't it wonderful that the premise of the quran is mostly based on the torah
Isn't it wonderful that Islam came to beign 600yrs after Christianity

If I'm to be a religious person wouldn't it be better to go with the original rather that following the dumbed down version

Personally, I believe everyone should be free to pick whatever fairy tale sails their boat. I happen not to subscribe to any myself, because I feel dumbed down by them, all together. I just hope that, by your logic, you're Jew, not a christian. Otherwise, you risk being seen as a hypocrite.

Here is a brilliant article on the subject of Hijab and the law school I read on premium times. I don't necessarily agree with all the views expressed in this article, but I agree with the crux of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G6l_rHBKWIk/hqdefault.jpg

A law student in Nigeria, Firdaus Amasa Abdulsalam fulfilled all academic requirements to practice the legal profession but was barred from the call to bar ceremony by the Law School’s Body of Benchers in Abuja on December 12, 2017. The reason for her being barred was because she wore, along with her professional habiliments, her hijab neatly tucked under the barristers’ wig.

Apparently, there’s another case that is not yet as publicised as that of Firdaus. Another graduating law student, Aisha Zubair was harassed at the same call to bar ceremony – she was not only forced to remove her hijab but had it trampled on, and had her certificate seized by obviously uncouth Law School personnel.

Since the show of shame occurred, there have been arguments for and against the matter. The matter has taken a polemical life of its own and sides have been taken – some disappointingly extreme at that!

Personally, I find it appalling that the wearing of hijab by a professional is being debated in this day and age – 2017! Some of my friends and colleagues in the West are quite shocked by the development and wonder when Nigeria will get on with the times. Considering that the Western world has adopted the hijab in almost every professional sphere, it is rather peculiar that the Nigerian Law School has chosen to be the antithesis of modernity.

In the legal profession, the international community has embraced diversity, but locally some of the advocates are hinged on colonialist traditions imposed upon subject colonies. Ironically, the West has, to a large extent, abandoned the donning of the barristers’ wigs in court and generally accepted the wearing of hijab by female Muslim lawyers.

For instance, a US Judge, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in with a Quran in New York and she donned her head-dress proudly. So it is rather strange that oaths can be taken by Muslim lawyers with a Quran, but female Muslims cannot wear their hijab to a call to bar ceremony in Nigeria. A quagmire has emanated from an inherent loophole – an avoidable contretemps nonetheless.

The president of the Nigerian Bar Association, A.B Mahmoud stated that the association would embrace diversity and tolerance, and address the matter. He further shared a picture of his daughter wearing the hijab during her call to the New York Bar.

The situation can simply be rectified by the country’s legal institutions deliberating on the matter and seeking redress to an anomaly that has tainted the Nigerian Law School since its creation in 1963. This is an obvious contradiction that needn’t exist.

Surely, a suggested dress code convention and many other inherited colonial practices ought to have evolved with the times.

A few arguments have been raised against the hijab, and I cannot overemphasise the otiosity of some of these arguments, but for the purpose of fairness, these arguments must be addressed. I have identified seven arguments that address the issue:

(1) Imposition; (2) Comply and Complain; (3) Temporary Inconvenience; (4) Other Religious Requests; (5) Foreign Culture; (6) State Secularity, and (7) Legality and Constitution.

1. Imposition

I posit that the hijab is not an imposition if the wearer has not imposed it on anyone else. I wonder how a piece of cloth on someone’s head threatens the existence of others.

In reality, it is the Law School that has imposed its intolerance on some Muslim women for decades – the paradox for a noble profession meant to uphold the law and custodianship of human rights.

Some of the Muslim women who previously fell to the sword of the Law School’s unconstitutional imposition have started feeling oppressed and naked without their hijabs, but they admitted to not being courageous enough to challenge the injustice meted out to them for various personal reasons.

The stance of Firdaus that fateful day has brought to the fore the sufferings of many women and would hopefully bring an end to this modern day absurdity.

Women who have freely chosen to wear the hijab state, unequivocally, that they feel liberated in it and anything contrary to wearing the hijab is humiliation – that is their choice and people must learn to respect this choice. So it is quite ludicrous to speak on behalf of people who wear the hijab without their reasoning or opinion.

2. Comply and Complain {I believe this point addresses my back and forth with Tintingz}

Some have argued that Firdaus should have ‘obeyed before complaint’.

For the sake of argument, assuming that Firdaus obeyed, what will be the basis of her complaint? She will be accused of hypocrisy. Some of those castigating her bold stance would be the first to label her a fake activist or attention seeker. Firdaus would probably have been accused of insincerity; that if she was genuine she should have protested by not obeying the dress code convention.

At times, civil disobedience might be the most effective mechanism to address a social injustice and effect change.

On civil disobedience, Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated:

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

In this regard, if a law is unjust, discriminatory and violates human rights, should such a law be obeyed? In the case of Firdaus, it is a dress code convention, that she and others consider discriminatory, that has been disobeyed and not a law.

Evidently, some people are more courageous than others, whilst some may withstand oppression and discrimination, others will definitely not.

In terms of the Rosa Parks analogy: On a fateful day of December 1, 1955 in Montgomery Alabama, Rosa Parks decided to disobey an unjust law by initiating a protest against segregation.

Before that day, many people had complied with the unjust law.

However, it must be emphasised that there are those who the unjust law did not affect; to those the law didn’t discriminate against, it was not an unjust law.

Rosa Park’s singular act of rebellion against an unjust law emancipated many affected people. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a 13-month mass protest between December 5, 1955 and December 20, 1956 that ended with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional.

Rosa Parks, by her own admission, was a ‘rebellious’ lady and Malcolm X was one of those she was inspired by. Malcolm X once stated that:

“A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything”

If Rosa Parks had obeyed an unjust law that was discriminatory towards her and other affected people, the injustice would have persisted.

Study history and you will find exceptional individuals who challenged the status quo: those who chose to fight a selfless battle that would benefit others in the future. The world celebrates and benefits from the struggles and sacrifices of such people today.

I celebrate Firdaus for being courageous enough to sacrifice her being called to bar to initiate a debate about an injustice and human rights infringement that has been perpetrated against those who choose to practice their faith and the ambit of the legal profession.

Ask yourself, what you have done with your life, what cause have you stood for and what will you be remembered for after you are gone!

3. Temporary Inconvenience

Some have argued that it is only a temporary inconvenience – which it is just a few hours! The hijab wearer practically feels naked without her hijab! So would those proposing she takes off her hijab for a few hours be willing to go be naked for a few hours as well? Will such people, with any decency, walk around naked for a few hours or even allow themselves be photographed in the nude for just a few hours?

Modesty is relative and we must respect the modesty of others. It’s a free world after all! I posit a critical advancement in human history is the evolution from the primitivity of unclothedness to the civilisation of being clothed.

If certain people want to regress to the era of ‘uncivilisation’ by practically being ‘naked’, ironically in the name of ‘civilisation’, then there shouldn’t be a problem with those who choose to express their interpretation of civilisation as wearing a scarf on their head. We should learn to be more tolerant – live and let live!

Agent's thoughts: I find the first part of this statement objectionable! Progress and civility isn't measured by how people dress or appear. It is measured by how much value is placed on personal freedoms. The author redeemed quickly redeemed himself in the last statement: Live and let live!

From the Muslim’s perspective, Islam is a complete religion – complete in every sense of the word, with guidelines on how to live every aspect of life. One of those aspects is the etiquette of public appearances, which some Muslim women have chosen to abide by in their daily lives. The scriptural injunction states:

“And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.” – Quran 24:31

It must be emphasised that Islam allows individuals the choice of living by these guidelines or not, because there is no compulsion in religion.

“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” – Quran 2:256

However, for those women who have chosen to follow Islam and use the hijab, it is a dressing etiquette for public appearances.

By M.B.O. Owolowo
https://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2017/12/26/hijab-and-the-bar-by-m-b-o-owolowo/

analize701:
The same horsehit you quoted from earlier and you Moslems can't stand on without?

I'm not a Moslem, thank you!

You are a serious being? Do you know what being serious means? Take the Bible away from islam and watch it collapses with nothing to stand on.

You have a tangent for every point on a circle, don't you?

You are a very funny character. is the exile of the Jews by Titus, the settling of the Jews in the Arabian peninsular and killing of the Jews by Muhamed in the Bible?
Just say you want a Cop out.

Seriously, what are you on about? I really don't understand your point.

You have not refuted any of my claims with this^^^.

I know this must be strange to you, but agreeing with the accurate points of your co-discussant is called objectivity. So, while I agreed with your claim that the Jews developed Yathrib economically, your claim that they made it economically, culturally and politically dominant was complete bullocks! It was Mecca, not Yathrib that was the political, economic and cultural powerhouse of the peninsula.

And, This discourse is not about the political dominance of the Jews in the Arab Peninsular. it is about them giving Mecca the economic and cultural prominence in the Peninsular. As a matter of fact, the activities of the Jews made Mecca politically prominent.
They knew they were exiles there. And, if you knew anything about the Jews, you'd know that a Jew always believed that the Next Jewish Feast of the Tabernacle will be celebrated in Jerusalem, hence they knew they were where they found themselves temporarily.

This claim is false! And since you're being a monumental prat about your ignorance, I will start including my references.
There's hardly any historical record of Jewish tribes in Mecca. Mecca didn't become prominent because of Jewish activity. It became prominent because it was the safest trade route at the time, just as I mentioned earlier. See pp 14-15 “A history of Islamic Societies” Lapidus (1988)

Good thing you agreed that the Jews developed Mecca(Yathrip) economically and made it where all the Arabs wanted to go.
Why did Muhammed kill the Jews in Yathrip?

Goodness me! You don’t even know the difference between Yathrib and Mecca!

When you lie, pls note you are not the only one with access to facts. No one invited Muhammed as an arbiter in the battle of the Trenches, he batched on the tribes and presented a pact because he had a ban of thieves whom everyone in the area feared.

Here is what wiki says.
In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and established a pact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.[5]
Where did you see Muhammed being called in to settle any dispute?

The following is an excerpt from the Wiki page on Muhammed’s emigration to Medina:
“The next year, at the pilgrimage of 622, a delegation of around 75 Muslims of the Banu Aws and Khazraj from Medina came…They invited him to come to Medina as an arbitrator to reconcile among the hostile tribes.”

You present lies. Sorry not everyone is lazy to read.

No, not everyone. Just you!

Thoroughbred you called muhammed? Again. do you realize people are reading you?

Yes I do, with the greatest sense of responsibility.

Why don't you post it out here for others to read too? If there's an emotional one here, it's you by trying to present half truths.

I really cannot be posting several pages of text here for obvious reasons…maybe not so obvious to you. That’s why I included the hyperlink. It’s literally just a tap away!

Who in particular invited Muhammed, with facts pls.

You’re beginning to ask questions, That's good progress, even though I have become a bit weary from your ignorance. Here’s another excerpt from the book, “The Cambridge History of Islam” pp. 40 (Holt, Lambton et al. 1970)
“Contact with the Jews had familiarized the Arabs of Medina with the conception of an inspired religious leader, perhaps even with the expectation of a Messiah. Thus among the six men {from Medina} who met Muhammad in 620 there would be a degree of readiness to accept his claims at the religious level. At the same time they could not but be aware that a neutral outsider to Medina like Muhammad, with authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as impartial arbiter than any inhabitant of Medina”

You are afraid of me? Why does me being all over the place a concern to you?

You’re a lightweight. However, your straw men are a little distracting, and just prolong the discourse unnecessarily. It seems you can’t help it, so I guess I’ll just ignore them.

When was this constitution written? was it when they area was just a group of tribes men dwelling in enclaves or after that?

It was written after Muhammad accepted to emigrate to Medina (Yathrib), as the terms of the tribal confederacy that would be operational there.

And, who is talking about Medinah? We are talking about the Yathrip (Mecca) where the Jews settled.

Medina is Yathrib, fool!

Lets begin with Safiya, Kinani's wife whom he killed on their wedding day and raped her that same day. Haven't you read it in your books.

Use your head, if it wasn't on Sabbath days, a handfull of bandits wouldn't behead 900 strong men. Muhammad knew a Jew won't lift a finger on that day, hence he chose it to attack them.

Criminal is in hellfire already, especially haven been killed by a woman.

This guy, your lies knows no boundaries. You just mentioned a Word 'Conquest'. Islam has been having converts through conquest from Muhammad. that's why we still see the same thing playing out today everywhere Muslims are.

You are openly lying hoping i don't know how to use the search engine in goggle abi.

Gerarahai.

Just when we were making progress. You're a real piece of work and I am just really bored of you now. Please read some proper history books if you really wanna know the history of that region and stop pooping all over the internet. It's tedious work cleaning your dung up for you.

References:
Holt, P. M., A. K. S. Lambton and B. Lewis (1970). The Cambridge history of Islam. Cambridge Eng., University Press.
Lapidus, I. M. (1988). A history of Islamic societies. Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York, Cambridge University Press.

analize701:
lol. You have already adjudged my understand when i didn't give any historical background to what i said.
Weldone.

That's precisely the point! Rather than support your claims with facts from history, you chose instead, to back them up with a truck load of opinionated horseshit. This is an unsophisticated way to present an argument. You have repeated the same misguided opinions here again, and I will show you how if you bear with me.

Jewish tribes arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economically and politically dominant position.

It is true that the Jews were among the earliest settlers in Yathrib, and that they developed it agriculturally. What this earned them, at best, was political and economical independence, but they were certainly not in a culturally, economically or even politically dominant position. It was the Arabs of Yathrib, who, though were latter settlers, held sway culturally and politically. Jewish tribes allied themselves with the leading Arab ones such as banu Aws and Khazraj. This fact is reflected in the Jewish Encyclopedia. But like I mentioned earlier, the leadership wasn't really structured as such. Just many cooperating feuding client tribes. That said, At the time of Muhammed, Mecca was by far the most dominant city not just in Hijaz, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula; politically, economically and culturally. I will be happy to explain why in detail, but the summary of it is that its leadership exploited the decline of the political power houses of the time. As they fought each other, trading routes became dangerous, and so the Meccans ensured their city was the safest trading route for lucrative commodities such as slaves, spices, gold, and so on. Yathrib pretty much only survived on dates, and was no match for Mecca in terms of importance.

Why was Muhammed interested in the particular location? Was it not because it has become the center of economy? Who made that possible? The Jews.

No, it wasn't. In fact, Muhammed wasn't really interested in Yathrib at all, except for the fact that the inhabitants approached him to assume the role of a dispassionate arbiter in the decades old conflicts between the leading tribes of Yathrib at the time. This happened at a time he was most desperate for succuor because members of his tribe in Mecca were definitely gonna kill him and his weak band of followers. He jumped at the opportunity immediately.

Sir, if you'd call me unsophisticated, i think the best thing you should have done is to get your sophisticated facts out.

I hope you now see why I dismissed your emotional venting as unsophisticated.

Ask yourself why Muhammed who originally comes from Yemen, then settled in Mecca, will be the one to impost his rule on a land he came in to meet people already living and doing peaceful business in.

I cannot ask myself that because the premise of such a question is objectively false. Muhammed and members of his tribe, the Quraish, were born and thoroughbred Meccans.

He made the rules, others accepted to go by his rules, but unsuspectingly, he got up and broke the pact and besieged the Jews beheading 900 Men, stealing all their animals, properties and their women.

Please read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Even though it is a Jewish cite, it is far more objective than the emotional garbage you're presenting here.

The attack on the Jews was inevitable, you mean as it is today?

Focus! You're distracted.

These tribes have been living successfully and peacefully doing business together until the moslems were allowed in, then trouble began.

Wrong! They weren't living peacefully, which was what prompted them to invite Muhammed to arbitrate between them in the first place.

Just like it is today, moslems come into your area, you allow them, with time they rise up and attack you claiming your land by insisting on you obeying their religious laws or take the Sword.

You're all over the place! You seriously need to focus. You seem to enjoy veering off on tangents.

Lolzzz, You guessed the Moslems felt betrayed? Muhammed didn't come to the Jews with 'Live and Let's live', he came with 'There's no other god but allah and muhammed is his prophet. He didn't go to them with the right hand of fellowship of worship yoir YHWH while we worship our allah.

Wrong! Stop making ignorant claims! Again, I implore you to read the entry on the Jewish encyclopedia. Also look up the Constitution of Medina. I've now hyperlinked it twice for you!

He told the Jews that he was the Promised Prophet Moses talked about in their Torah, The Jews being a people guided by their law, Knew he was lying, since all yhe Prophets who had come had always been Jews, an Arab couldn't be a Prophet of their God YHWH, especially not this man whose reputation went ahead of him in the Arab peninsula.

Yes! Most of the Jews didn't believe him because he wasn't as adept as they were in Abrahamism, so they did what they could to expose the fraud of his claims. Of course, this eroded the initial warmth between the groups, and some of the Jewish tribes conspired to get rid of him by supporting the Meccans against him. Both factions became mutually antagonistic, each trying to eliminate the other.

Besides, there are Criteria to know a prophet of YHWH

Yeah, I guess so, but I'm not discussing the accuracy of his claim. I am sure the Jews of Yathrib had legitimate reasons to dismiss his claim to prophethood.

and Muhammed has had a reputation of stealing as an High Way man. He was known to be a rapist by these same men he was claiming he was their prophet, hence, they rejected him as YHWH's prophet. The narcissistic tendencies in him propelled him to take the move he took. Low self esteem made him not able to handle rejection, hence, he attacked them on a day he knew a Jew won't lift a finger in retaliation.

These claims seem dubious. Have you any references for them? In particular, I'm interested to know where you read that he was a rapist, or that he attacked on a Sabbath.

You mean Muhammad presented them with this option, 'The Koran or the Sword?'. pulissssss. Go l[ with the soft peddling of Muhammad's evils. Those who converted were the fearful ones, just like Here in Nigeria, they present the Koran and the sword. choose. The cowards Chooses the koran and die twice.

The Muslims were by no means strong enough to compel anyone to convert. Not before the conquest of Mecca, so there is no way they compelled anyone who accepted Islam in Medina to become Muslim.

Pls the facts are on goggle for everyone who is intereated to see, Muhammad was never accepted as a prophet peacefully, whether in Medina or anyehere else, it was by the sword. Right at Medina when he was openly rejected and called a fraud was chased out of town, he came back glorifying demons, the daughters of allah his grandfather and father had worshipped, which he removed an called idols because he wanted the Monotheistic God of the Jews to be his God.

Maybe take your own advice...but please use Google. I very much doubt the veracity of your "goggle" sources.

How did the Satanic Verses come about?

Seriously, focus!

PastorAIO:
Please what year did this event take place. I ask because I am not aware of Muhammad invading any land that wasn't in Arabia.

I believe Analize701 is talking of Yathrib (modern day city of Medina), however, this person's understanding of the story is rather very unsophisticated. First of all, Medina is an oasis, but of course, naturally formed. It was not converted by the jews as (s)he claims. Also, I'm not sure about the day Muhammed attacked, but the outcome of that attack was devastating. In some ways also, inevitable. During their stay in Yathrib, the tensions between the Muslim and the leaders of some local Jewish tribes simmered and eroded the trust that allowed the Muslims into Medina in the first instance. I guess the Muslims felt betrayed also, because, in spite of them acknowledging the Jews as among god's chosen, and even praising all their prophets and what not, the Jewish leadership in these tribes, though accepting Muhammed's political leadership, refused to acknowledge the supremacy of his religion. Some did convert to Islam, but many didn't make it a secret that they considered Muhammed's message a fraudulent rip off! On several occasions, they would rebuff his attempts to convert them by asking him difficult questions. So, in spite of his wide acceptance in Medina, he wasn't universally liked by all the leading tribes there.
For some reason, Muhammed chronicled his frustrations with this set of Jews in several parts of the Qur'an, apparently, as god's response to them. This is just one of his responses below:

Q2: 82-88
(82) And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse.
(83) And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).
(84) Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression-and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.
(85) Such are those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter. Their punishment will not be lightened, neither will they have support.
(86) And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
(87) And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
(88) And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.

So what happened?
Before the Muslims arrived Yathrib, it was a relatively stable free market economy with no real leadership, just a bunch of tribes, each having their own tribal representative in a sort of community congress. These tribes were a mix of Arabized Jewish tribes like banu Aws, core Jewish ones like banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir; as well as other core Arab tribes and perhaps others that were unrecorded. Around the year 622AD, Muhammed was invited to Medina to come and settle a dispute between two of the leading tribes then, Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj, as he was seen as trust worthy. Among the conditions for his participation was that as an independent arbiter, he was to become the de facto leader of Medina, and his decisions would be final. Made sense, as many found his judgements fair; and even became Muslims as a result. He also instituted a representative theocratic government in which Jews were expressly allowed to govern themselves in accordance with their own legal codes, but they were still subject to state taxes instituted for the welfare of the state.

Unfortunately, during one of the battles with the pagans of Mecca, the battle of the trenches (so named because the Muslims were grossly outnumbered and decided to protect themselves by digging trenches around their city),one of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayzah, conspired with the Meccans to attack the Muslims from behind, perhaps because they weren't happy with their new subordinate status or maybe their mistrust for the divine claims of Muhammed had reached its climax. Either way, they grossly miscalculated. The Meccans had planned to weaken the Muslims by siege; and then Qurayzah would finish them off, but the siege didn't last long, as the arid climate with its treacherous sand storms frustrated the Meccans. Meanwhile, the Muslims got wind of the intentions of Banu Qurayzah, and marched on them as soon as the battle was over. The leadership of banu Qurayzah had betrayed one of the key provisions in the Medina constitution, and Muhammed, knowing the punishment for this kind of betrayal according to Jewish traditions would be severe; and at the same time, navigating around a tense political situation (at this point, the Jews of Yathrib were still vastly more influential in the city than the Muslims), he appointed the leader of banu Aws who had converted to Islam, to pronounce judgement on banu Qurayzah according to the Torah. The judgement was severe: Kill all male members of the tribe that have attained the age of puberty; and enslave women and children. This was a politically deft move! He at once, eliminated his political opponents, while not incurring the wrath of the powerful Arabised Jewish tribes in Medina. But it was just as stupendously atrocious. Nevertheless, it solidified the Muslims' stronghold on Yathrib and allowed then to subsequently institute more severe strains of their theology.

OMG that commentary cracked me up!

"Decent armed robber"

Wow! This is so brilliant, so eloquent, so poingnant...I love it!!

tintingz:
Good you're honest about it.

#TeamHonesty

Obey before complain! That's the rule.

Which rule? You're stuck in the age of juntas...lol

One wants to join the military he/she is already protesting about wearing ankara on top uniform, where does that happen?

In societies that abide by constitutional democracy. It's a fine thing, democracy!

Your choice is limited when you signed the agreement/consented form

We're going in circles!

do you see public workers protesting on everything?

Of what relevance is this question?

Oga I'm not confused, you simply don't get the whole thing, people who protest are even at risk of sanctions(e.g government might not pay them salaries and sack them, like the case of the doctors strike).

So might is right then?

The fact still remains, she's denied to be called to bar, is that not the goal she went into law school? There are other open doors for her, but we're talking about what she studied for 6 years!

Yeah, that's the fact!

And who said social media reports can't be valid? Did you do investigation on it? Like I said also, I don't know how worthy the report is.

Nope, I did not investigate it. Then again, it wasn't me who brought up an unverified gossip as an argument in the first place. It's simple: If you don't know how worthy a report is, don't use it as an argument in support of your position.

The rule that said, "do you accept to abide to the rules and regulations of the so so so" can you also take a moment to process that?

Wait a minute...okay, I've just processed it, and I still maintain that such a rule is null and void if it violates the constitution!

KingEbukasBlog:
Are you trying to say that one cannot admit that he can't refute an argument or proposition ?

No, I'm not trying to say such a thing. Honest people can! But at the same time, honest people can also be cognitively biased enough not to recognize when their propositions are wrong.

To be a judge in your own case, you must meet roughly three criteria:

1) You have to be honest, even if against yourself, since this will lead to the right judgement.
2) You have to be fully cognitively rational, so that the right judgement isn't tainted by your own preconceptions.
3) The parties involved must trust that you possess the first two qualities, so that they may accept your judgement as indisputably right.

The former two are naturally very difficult criteria to meet for anyone. But even if by some miracle, you manage those, the third one is particularly impossible when there is conflict of interest. As such, it is never ethical to offer to be the judge in a debate in which you're already heavily biased towards one of the sides. One would think, as a seasoned debater, this point isn't lost on you.

tintingz:
You're not getting the whole thing, it's either you don't get what I'm saying or you understand but just want to argue to stay relevant.

Lol...I really don't get the whole thing because your arguments are incoherent, but I'll also go with the latter...I just want to argue to stay relevant too.

Since you have problem with private organization, maybe public organization will be a good example, every organization have code of conduct, before one is employed or given admission, they must fill agreement/consent form, you're agreeing the rules and regulations of the organization can surpass some of your constitutional rights(maybe using supersede is the right word) and one has to abide to the rules or face sanctions (suspension, termination etc), it doesn't mean your constitutional rights is caged somewhere, you still have freedom to quit the job.

If the Nigeria military said no hijab on uniform then one has no other choice than to abide to rules or face sanctions, it doesn't mean one can't wear her hijab again, they just don't want the person wearing it on uniform, you still have freedom and constitutional rights to protest!

You sound confused man. First you say one has no choice but to abide, then you acknowledge that they still have the freedom to protest. Isn't the latter a choice? And if you believe they have the freedom to protest, what exactly is your argument against Firdaus?

And did she achieve the goal of the call to bar?!

Like I said earlier, she still has her whole life ahead of her. A goal doesn't have to be time stamped. Moreover, maybe she considers this fight a momentarily more rewarding goal than being called to bar. So, stop behaving as if you know what her goals are.

He gave more Revelation about the saga.

Being friends with Buhari's daughter doesn't automatically qualify anybody's opinion as relevant. So, unless there's something interesting he said which you wish to call my attention to, I don't care.

Never said this!

Good, then don't invoke social media gossips as valid arguments!

Oga, There are no rules that says you cannot become a lawyer but there are rules you should know before entering the law field, there are rules lawyers must abide to.

A rule that disqualifies you from receiving your law certificate because you refuse to remove your hijab is a rule that says you cannot become a lawyer if you wear your hijab. Take a moment to process that.

Exactly, if you want Firdaus to challenge the rules in the court of not allowing her choice to use Hijab then sango worshippers, Ifa people, masquerades should do same, I've no problem with this at all. Equality for all!

You keep repeating this as if you expect me to argue against. Equality for all is what I've been saying all along. Yes, I'll very happily lend equal support to any Sango, ifa, masquerade, obatala, Viking or Scotsman that wants to become a lawyer dressed as whatever.

This challenge reminds me of one of the dumbest arguments Muslims use to prove the divinity of the Qur'an.
In the Qur'an, there's a challenge to all skeptics, that if they are sure of its dubious origins, they should produce a chapter just like one of its chapters. Of course, no objective list of criteria was given on how such a challenge would be judged; and only Muslims get to be the judge, nevermind that this creates a catch 22 system in which Muslims are also to believe that the Qur'an is inimitable.

Of course, a Christian website spotted this flaw and developed a brilliant argument that rightly exposes the bias inherent in such a risible challenge. Oh, the divine irony!

lagostokd:
Why will you place Islamic terrorists in the same category with Islamophobes? Putting evil in the same category with light is demonic. An Islamophobe is a sane person that exposes the danger of Islam and its evil teachings. In fact, every freedom lover should be an Islamophobe.

Islamophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam


I do not see how "irrationality" and "sanity" can describe the same thing.

Indeed, Islam is a backward religion but it is demonic to say all religions are backward. Let's use Nigeria as an example. A major part of Nigeria's North has been exposed to and influenced by Islam for more than 300 years likewise a major part of the country's south influenced by Christian missionaries more than 150 years ago.

The Christian missionaries built systems, schools, hospitals, and set the country's South on the path of unprecedented development and freedom whereas, Islam in the North produced Almajiris and extremely poor masses which further restated your earlier post that Islam is a backward religion

Lol@ "Unprecedented development and freedom". I don't even know how to start and end this response. I am not sure you know the meanings of unprecedented, development or even freedom.
People kissing the chair of their daddy GO is unprecedented development and freedom.
People squandering 10% of their hard earned incomes on pastor's motley assortments of expensive cars, shoes and private jets is unprecedented development too.
Christian missionaries brainwashing populations, decimating cultures, languages and traditions and paving the way for colonialists to loot our resources. Definitely unprecedented development and freedom!
Using the church's instruments to justify the barbaric practice of racial slavery when it was in vogue,
Convincing millions of Catholics that condoms are a sin,
Convincing many believers against all evidence that the world is just thousands of years old.
Mega churches capitalising on the moral bankruptcy that pervades the country.

If there's unprecedented development and freedom in the south, I haven't seen it. The north is in shambles, no doubt, but when it becomes your yardstick for measuring development and freedom your problems are unprecedented.

You know you have made it in life when people waste so much energy debating you! While I am obviously basking in the attention, I feel entitled to contribute to debates about me.

Muslim or not?
A few people on this thread have vehemently insisted that I am Muslim, even against my own express testimony otherwise. On this note, I don't feel obliged to prove to anybody that I am anything. Everyone is perfectly entitled to believe I am whatever they want me to be, including, but not limited to Muslim, Christian, Confucian, Buddhist, Jew, Taoist, Spiritualist, Awoist, Diviner, Muhammed, Allah, Black Jesu, Zeitgeist, apologist, socialist, dentist, specialist, Schindler's list and any other thingumajig on that endless list of "-ists".
The truth is, I can understand why people feel the need to force "the other" into their little compartmentalised boxes of things, because I have been there myself. This need seems inexorably biological, and is usually accentuated in minds that have been dangerously tribalised by the polarised atmosphere in which they exist. It takes a lot of unlearning to tame. Richard Dawkins once described it as the "tyranny of the discontinuous mind" in a fantastically written editorial that may yet help to disabuse our minds of this progress-inhibiting obsession.

Where does discontinuous mindedness lead?
The every perception of the discrete minded becomes inescapably binary because nothing can escape the tainted filters of their worldview. Everything becomes either this or that. If you support gay rights, you're gay; if you support a Muslim woman's right to wear hijab, you're a Muslim (possibly also a woman); if you support ogbanje rights, you're abiku (kill the witch!). It should come as no surprise that such people should lack an appreciation for the not so subliminal distinctions between principled objectivity and tribal association. If we cannot turn off our tribal filters to appreciate the fine diversities of life, we will be stuck in our little echo chambers, forever believing our reechoed voices are god's certificate of approval. Well, to believe one's self to be infallible, even against clear evidence makes one impervious to reason; thus unable to learn, grow and become a better version of themselves.

What I stand for
In summary, one does not have to hold, or even like an opinion, to recognise the rights of other people to hold or like said opinions. I have just convinced myself that no one should be shamed for forcing me to spell out this painfully obvious banality, because there just might be that one person who, for no fault of theirs, has never realised that humans tend to see things through tribal filters.
Let me be clear: My view about hijab isn't inconsistent with what my state of belief is; that is, I hate the idea/or thinking that prompts anyone to voluntarily wear it; be it to guard their "chastity" against the prying eyes of lascivious men or to please sky daddy. At the same time, my view about anybody's right to wear hijab isn't inconsistent with my liberal and pluralist principle, which is that anybody has the right to wear her hijab if she strongly believes in its importance. Ergo, I will give whatever I can, however little, to support their fight if such a right is violated, neither compromising my atheistic view nor my liberal one.
It would have been easy for me to keep quiet and allow the whole thing to blow over, but I didn't because this whole brouhaha violates my principles...like Wole Syinka once said, "The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny."

Ioseph:
I am seeing people defend the most insane of muslims, the most dangerous of Islamists these days solely because they are Muslim. While I agree initially with the sentiment because many muslims have horrible treatment in some parts of the world, that does NOT mean that Islam must be devoid of ALL criticism towards it for fear of prejudice.

In example, I recently saw people defending a salafi Imam on TV for his "muslim beliefs". WHAT!?

OP, I want to understand the cause of your indignation. What exactly was this Imam being defended from?

I also keep seeing people defending the Burqa (and the hijab).

Again, what is the Burqa (and the hijab) being defended from?

The ONLY muslims who even wear the burqa are the goddamned extremists!!!

No, OP, you're wrong. There are also people who wear the Burqa because they fear for their lives, or because they fear being ostracised by society. Be careful about binarising the impulses that guide religious practices. They are typically more nuanced than superficial observations can reveal!

Now that Turkey's government is Islamist, suddenly there are Muslims trying to bullying people into HAVING TO WEAR THE VEIL!! Who's being oppressed again!?

Yes, there are many Muslims who bully people into dressing in certain ways, including wearing Burqas and hijabs. These are no more dangerous and extreme than non-Muslims trying to bully people into not wearing burqa and hijab. I hope we are all capable of forging a society in which people just accept the multiplicity of life's flavours and expressions.

Mormons are seen as madmen. Born again Christians, madmen. But Muslims are for some reason exempt? I have a friend who is a devout Sunni and it is the creepiest thing - he is very laid back and friendly and normal but as SOON as Islam is brought up he goes all fanatical and ultra-religious, like a switch hit in his brain and changed his personality to some Muslim Zealot. It is terrifying because that's the kind of thing that happens with cults, you know.

Religion is like a virus that occupies the same conceptual space as the practitioner's ego. Touch it and you might bruise their ego. From experience, a wounded ego induces irrational reactions out of a desperate need to salvage what's left of itself. I just think it is generally better and more potent to ask questions of them than to prescribe answers. That way, you entirely sidestep the inconvenience of having to directly tell people that they are wrong, while also allowing them to reconcile their cognitive dissonances by their own means.

The double standards many Muslims have to social situations is very suspicious. Being against religious discrimination when they are the minority but having extreme discrimination against non-muslims while they are the majority. Being against Burqa bans due to "oppression" while they are the minority, but outright enforcing the veil and other sexist laws upon women when they are the majority. Being in support of human rights (that benefit them) when they are the minority but then throwing them under the bus with their Shariah law when they are the majority. It all reeks of opportunism.

As far as burqa is concerned, I don't think there is any Muslim majority country that enforces it. There is still, at least, one Muslim majority country (Iran) that enforces the hijab. Saudi enforces the Abaya, but not the hijab, and many other undemocratic Muslim countries enforce one form of strict dress code or another. The problem here isn't really what is being enforced, but the fact that the state thinks it part of its responsibility to enforce any sort of dress code. However, let's not lose track of the underlying enabling factor here, because it is not so much Islam as it is minority rule. There is literally no democratic country with Muslim majority where such rules exist. This fact reveals a more nuanced picture of Islam, one that sketches it is not as a monolith, but as a religion just as diverse in its expressions as any other. There are three groups of people who are likely to see Islam as a monolith; the Islamic terrorists and Islamophobes and those who are completely apathetic towards it. Of these, the former two are equally as dangerous in that they desperately need it to be monolithic.

I feel like people need to call out Islam for what it is - a backwards and fanatical religion which is intolerant and unflexible.

Islam is a backward religion, no doubt...like all other religions are! Likewise, fanaticism is a violent strain of belief shared amongst all religions in equally proportions. Let's make it even more general: Any philosophy that packages with it, the false sense of group exceptionalism is a fast track to fanaticism.

tintingz:
Are you saying some rules in banks(for example) doesn't surpass staffs constitutional rights? E.g dress code, religious activities, limited freedom?

No rule can surpass the constitution. Banks are private institutions, banking is a profession. There is no rule that prevents a trained banker from receiving their certificate because of the way they are dressed. Private banks may exist that impose particular dress codes. At the same time, private banks may also exist that allow masquerades in their workforce. Likewise, legal practices may exist that allow or disallow hijab, but it is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to practice because of their hijab. Look up corporate personhood.

I'm talking about her goal and aim of studying law.

As was I.

Agreed but I didn't said she should use my personal yardstick, I only she should be wise about it.

Well, again, what constitutes wisdom is relative. In your mind she may lack it, but in hers, she's done the wise thing.

Have you read the article of a lawyer who is close to Buhari's daughter?

No! Of what relevance is it?

Someone shared the post on social media, I don't know how worthy it is.

Okay then. It's on social media, it's got to be true!

First of all I said "some of her constitutional rights" and secondly why do legal organization register or get license? Why do agreement forms are given to workers before employing them?

"Some"? So who or what draws the line on which of your constitutional rights can be violated and which can't? You're jumbling many unrelated things, my friend! Listen, it's simple. You have the right to dress like a disheveled hobo if you like. Likewise, a private institution has the right to disallow disheveled hobos from accessing its property. But constitutionally, there can be no rule that says you cannot become a lawyer because you're dressed like a hobo. If any such rule exists, then it can be, and must be challenged!

Yes but she forgot she filled an agreement/consent form before entering the law school.

Having argued for the unconstitutionality of the rule, I think the nature of this challenge preponderates such an agreement. It's not like if you want to become a practicing lawyer in Nigeria, without taking off your hijab, you have much of a choice. This lack of choice is what needs challenging. In essence, the constitutionality of such rules is questionable! If a rule is found to be illegal, then, by association, any agreement perpetuating such a rule becomes null and void!

Tozara:
Hehe. Don't mind me. My optimism is the kind that sees a smile even when the sun frowns. As long as I remain intoxicated by this belief, let me remain high and watch out for the future.

Oh, but your optimism has the power to make a frowning sun smile again!

QED? You mean Quantum Electrodynamics. The "jewel of physics". Oh, man I love particle physics a lot. Those energetic tiny bits of matter, I plan on writing some soul poetry about their emotions someday.

Such a poem wouldn't be far from my conceptualisation of quantum particles. I do often think of them as the simplest forms of conscious being because whether as individuals or as a collective, we don't behave too differently from them.

Tozara:
Haha! Between you and Feynman, if there's a gap, I do not believe it owes its existence to merit---or maybe a bit; not so sure---but to PRIVILEGE.

Much as I'd love this to be true, there is, of course, a spectacular and unassailable merit based gap between Feynman and me. That bloke reinvented one of the most complicated fields in physics using simple stickman-like diagrams even a high schooler can understand. Then through his simplicity, reconciled general relativity and quantum theory. I merely use his inventions to understand my work, so we cannot be equals...or even close.

You have the capacity and the potential---backed up by the will, extraordinary emphasis on experiment (a great ideological asset for a physicist), and the curiosity.

In physics potential is very different from kinetic.

However, while Feynman had access to vast resources, and a conducive environment---courtesy of the United States of America---fate had brought you to a skidmark on the planet, in its backwater continent, called Nigeria.

Yes, he did have a conducive environment which helped, but he's the type of person you just know would have thrived and stood out anywhere, owing only to his individual brilliance. I'm not.

It is this handicap---which you'll eventually overcome and surmount---that still gives Feynman an edge. In my opinion, you're a great physicist, and that reality latent in you will be making an explicit appearance soon.

Wow! Thanks for the belief you so generously repose in me. No pressure!

I can't believe I just spent time arguing against myself...haha! But comparing me with QED himself makes it easy.

Tozara:
You eventually fed me abomination and disrupted the cosmic hierachy. When a physicist that is certain to give Feynman a run for his money bows to a creature that could only come up with a book that talks about goats, camels and the color of the ancient deserts of Arabia, you know the laws of merit are raging and fuming.

Choi! Feynman ke? Have mercy on me oo, I be small pikin!

Daeylar:
What's happening here?

I thought this spirit has left you and the spirit of chill had come back to your life?

Sometimes, it gratifies to throw civility to the wind when dealing with pathological numbskulls.

Tozara:
Lol. I had to cross the border in order to catch the nigga jumping down the wall and prevent him from falling to his death.

Nigga maintains that AgèntOfAllah is a MUSLIM. What then? AlmiqhteeAllah must therefore be an IMAM.

AlmighteeAllah is all AlmighteeAllah. I bow down in reverence to its mighty mostliness!