₦airaland Forum

Explore2xmore:
NO

This was you

Explore2xmore:
The term Muslim refers to ANYONE who submits to God, even those who lived before Muhammad pbuh. .

So explain how Christians and Jews do not meet your definition.

givedemwotowoto:
Nicki Minaj did right what the world tried to do wrong against christians in Nigeria.

Her plan paid off.

DeepSight:
+
Please hold your discussant to the essentials of being a Muslim which are -

The most fundamental requirement—the "entry point"—is the Shahada. This is a sincere testimony of belief spoken with conviction:

"La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasul Allah." (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.)

To be a Muslim, one must believe in the absolute oneness of God (Tawhid) and accept Muhammad as the final prophet.
----Culled.

In addition by extension are the practice of the five pillars of Islam, but just hold the above.

This would have been the next step. It is clear his argument is just an equivocation.

OLAADEGBU:
American rapper Onika Maraj-Petty, popularly known as Nicki Minaj, has confirmed she received President Donald Trump’s “gold card” hours after publicly declaring her loyalty to him.

The singer shared photos of the card on X with the caption “Welp.”

She followed up with several posts celebrating the development, writing, “Finalizing that citizenship paperwork as we speak as per MY wonderful, gracious, charming President,” and adding, “Gold Trump card free of charge.”

#NickiMinaj #PresidentDonaldTrump #GoldCard

She achieved one of her goals.

Explore2xmore:
Oh! And you're not?
Didn't feel it was important enough too earlier but as you tend to insist here it is.

Your argument that we can't call Abraham a muslim because the Arabic term didn't exist back then makes a pretty big mistake when it comes to how we look at history and religious ideas. If we took that approach all the time, it would mess up almost every discussion about history and philosophy. Here's why:

1. Applying Philosophical Ideas to the Past

Think about Plato. We often call him a dualist because he talked about the difference between the physical world and the world of perfect ideas. But the term dualism as a formal philosophical idea wasn't around until after Plato was gone. Using your logic, calling Plato a dualist would be wrong because he never used that word, and it didn't exist in his time.

But experts agree that what Plato described is basically what we later called dualism. The concept was there; we just came up with the specific term later. No serious philosopher says we can't call Plato a dualist just because the word came later. We understand that words can still be accurate even if they came about after the thing they describe.

2. We also describe ancient Chinese dynasties as totalitarian when we see how much control they had, how they watched their people, and how they stopped anyone from disagreeing with them. The term totalitarianism was created in the 20th century to describe certain governments. But historians still use it to talk about earlier governments that acted the same way with complete state control, forcing everyone to think the same way, and getting rid of anyone who opposed them.

By your way of thinking, we couldn't call Qin Shi Huang's government totalitarian because that word didn't exist back in 221 BCE. That would make it really hard to understand and analyze political systems from the past using the best ideas we have.

3. Isaac Newton's work is called physics, but the term for physics as a formal science came about after he lived. Newton himself used the term natural philosophy. Should we refuse to say his Principia Mathematica is physics just because he didn't use that exact term?

Similarly, we call the ancient Greeks' studies of matter chemistry,even though chemistry as a formal science came much later. We call prehistoric humans Homo sapiens, even though they had no idea about that scientific classification. The reality was there; the terminology came later.

4. We call ancient Israelites monotheists, even though that term (which comes from Greek) was formalized after the Hebrew Bible was written. The Shema says there is one God; we use monotheism to describe that idea.
We call the followers of Gautama Buddha Buddhists, even though that term developed after he died they just followed the dharma.

We describe ancient Egyptian religion as polytheistic, using a term they never used though they worshipped many netjeru (gods).

5. Applying ideas to the past is okay when:

a) The underlying reality matches the concept. Abraham's worship of one God matches Islam's idea of submission (islam).

b) The later term accurately describes earlier things. Monotheism accurately describes how Israelites worshipped; muslim accurately describes submission to God in Islamic theology.

c) We admit we're using our own way of thinking and historians make it clear that they're using modern ideas to understand the past.

This is how things are done in history, philosophy, science, and theology.

The key thing you're missing is there's a big difference between saying someone had an identity that didn't exist yet as your Nigerian example where saying someone born in 1910 Lagos was Nigerian is wrong because Nigerian identity legally started in 1914; it's a specific political status that didn't exist before.

But applying a concept to something from the past in the Abraham example by
describing him as a muslim (someone who submitted to God) is a valid religious idea.
The idea of submitting to one God existed; Islam uses Arabic terms for it.

Your incorrect im treating religious/philosophical ideas which describe realities the same as legal/political identities which create new statuses.

Islam specifically defines muslim as anyone who submits to God in any time period. This isn't Muslims stretching definition, it is Islam's core religious idea, straight from its own primary source.

You can disagree with this religious idea (many do), but you can't say it's linguistically wrong, logically flawed, or doesn't match Islamic scripture. The Qur'an itself applies the term to people in the past - it's part of what defines Islam.

If you say that Islam's use of muslim for prophets before Islam is wrong, you need to show why applying ideas to the past is generally wrong which would mess up history/philosophy

Your Nigerian example mixes up different kinds of terms

Very simple question, are Christians and Jews Muslims? Just a simple yes or no.

Nifemy4:
I met this beautiful lady . We got talking , knowing each other . Then boom ! Like a thunderbolt from no where , she started talking about her ex boyfriend. Not in a pleasant way but in a deprecatory manner .

In her words
“ My ex bf is stingy . very stingy. We started dating last year , but the highest he has spent on me is 3 million .

😆🤣🤣 wait ! So what is she trying to say . I should beat his record.

You call a man who spent 3 m within a year stingy ?? Women are heartless

I blocked the mumu girl asap

Yep massive red flag. Good on you for shutting it down.

DeepSight:
+
Thats great. I regularly go off for two or three months to detox but thats about it. Well done.
As we get older its really important.

Exactly.

Brendaniel:
And you cannot provide any details of your claims from the article...

LoLz. Look who is talking. You have nothing but feels my guy so don't point a finger.

DeepSight:
+
Progress report pls.
I ask as one who has held the bottle rather firmly for more than two decades..

Going better than I expected. I haven't touched any alcohol since. I did discover 0% beer though so that was a consolation. LoLz.

HappyPagan:
And you are full of patience.

I try bro. I salute my oga DeepSight he's my role model. LoLz.

HappyPagan:
How's it going?

I'm in a much better state now.

Happy New Year y'all. Hope you have a great one.

Hey man. Happy to hear it is going well.

Wish you a brilliant year ahead.

PrinceAsanike:
Honestly, there should be a special place to keep a person under trial instead of sending them to prison yard, even if it is called remand.

You made a good point but if the court allow her to go, she may run away. So they need one or two people to sign undertaking for her and guarante the court that she will not run away, that is bail.

Without that bail, that is no guarantee, the court keeps her in prison

Ideally it should have been police custody aka jail not prison but jails are kinda worse than prison in this country.

.

Kriely:
I wish people can understand the Nigerian constitution and laws. They are rich but don’t have good legal team. Cybercrime is not a joke. Don’t go to prison for “clout.”

I know SM will land people in prison and still others won't learn their lesson. Imagine one telling me "freedom of speech" as if freedom of speech gives you the right to commit crimes.

Brendaniel:
That is why I am asking you where you saw investigation taking place from the OP's article, I'm relying on what was written here, you are relying on assumptions..

Where did you see the police do investigation in the statement there?

I am telling you what is the law and the practice, you are just here talking based on feels. Because the article doesn't state it explicitly doesn't mean they didn't. Even just the act of finding out her location is part of investigation but you don't know that because you don't know what it means or entails.

Brendaniel:
So why did they do it to Angela Okorie?

AHH you were there when Mercy Johnson walked to the police and told them bah. LoLz.

Brendaniel:
The article is here, there is nowhere they said she was summoned based on investigation, she was only arrested straight, so where is the investigation you are talking about?

The article is still here, go and read it, what investigation are you talking about?

So if I go to the police right now and tell them you defamed me they'll come and arrest you immediately? LoLz.

Brendaniel:
What investigation has been done?

Did you read of any summon by the police that was rejected?

You tell me since you are the one making the allegation.

It is funny how you never seem to be able to answer any questions directly. You couldn't give any legal framework to support your position nor can you answer a simple question of definition.

Brendaniel:
So you conclude that any person who talks bad about another person should be arrested first before being taken to court?

Do you know what the word investigate means and entails?

Brendaniel:
The question is how do you know a person's comment is defamatory( a lie) by just reading it?

And if you say that it is reason you have to arrest the person to prove it in court, it means you have judged the person before giving the person the chance to prove his statement.

And if the person is now innocent by proving his statement in court, so it is good you arrested first, dehumanized him and humiliated for speaking the truth?

That's why I told you, you are not the one, not even the police to decide if a comment is defamatory or not, only the court has the power to do that.

That's why I asked you, how do you know a person's comment is defamatory by just reading it, do you know if it is a lie or true?

What mechanism did you use to determine it a lie or true for you to arrest the person first before taking the person to court ?

Haven't you already judged the person?

Then I take it you have no legal framework for claiming freedom of speech supports defamation. You simply speaking from a what you feel perspective.

The police are tasked with investigating criminal allegations, if they have sufficient prima facie evidence to have you detained and arraigned then they have done their job. The court is where you now prove the allegations are false.

If you are sure or you are acquitted then you can counter sue\sue for damages.

Brendaniel:
So if it is true and the person was able to prove it in court after being arrested and detained throughout the court proceedings that maybe took months or years, what should be done in that regards?

Not answering any more of your questions till you answer mine.

Show me any legal framework that allows you via freedom of speech to speak defamatorily about someone.

Brendaniel:
Thank you, so when it is true, what do you call it?

You get to prove it is true in court. Lemme see how you prove someone is a witch in court.

If it is true then it is not defamation, simple.

Meanwhile still waiting for you to show me any legal framework that allows you via freedom of speak to speak defamatorily about someone.

Brendaniel:
What exactly is the crime here?

Can you tell me the meaning of defamation?

Legal Framework: Sections 373-381 of the Criminal Code and Sections 391-395 of the Penal Code define criminal defamation, covering both libel and slander.

Online Defamation: Under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015, online communication intended to annoy, insult, or cause hatred, which is false or offensive, is also criminally liable.

Civil vs. Criminal: In addition to criminal charges, victims can sue for damages in a civil tort claim for defamation.

Definition: It involves the publication of untrue information that lowers a person's reputation, exposes them to ridicule, or injures their profession.

Can you show me any legal framework that allows you via freedom of speak to speak defamatorily about someone?

Brendaniel:
Have you ever heard there is freedom of killing?

But you hear there is freedom of speech, the 2 are not the same, so don't compare them, apprehending is different from arrest, has the complainer filed a charge in court and the person refused to come?

That is why there is a court, if I said something about you. it could be true or it could be a lie, it is for the court to decide that but killing you, it is not the court that decides that you are dead or alive, and that is why even when there is no evidence or witness that I killed you it is hard for the police to even arrest me...

So for defamation, it is for me to prove if I Lied against you or not in the court, so If I am speaking the truth about the evils you have done and I am arrested before taken to court and still locked in prison while going to court, is that not injustice to me?

So I'm being punished for speaking the truth?

Listen to yourself...

The problem with you guys is that you hate looking at things from both sides, arresting before charging the person to court is wrong, police can summon you for explanation and evidence but not arrest you, except you refuse to show up, arresting you before charging you to court is already infringing on your rights on freedom of speech, let the court decide what is defamation...

You know sometimes people like you will be talking this way till it happens to you or a family member where someone does something bad against you and you speak out then the person comes back for you in the name of defamation just because he might have more money than you or connection, then you will know how painful it is.

I'm not praying that bad thing should happen to you, but I'm just letting you know, that you should try and be as logical as possible when dealing with these type of matters...

Freedom of speech is not freedom to commit crimes.

LoLz. Stop being emotional and personalising this matter. This is the law, defamation is a criminal act, your mini meltdown doesn't change it.

Brendaniel:
Defamation can and should be determined by the courts, yes it is a criminal offense but who exactly determines truth from defamation?


Shouldn't it be the court? not even police have the power to do that, so why arrest someone before taking the person to court?

So if I saw a man kill someone and I say I saw this man kill someone, then should that warrant an arrest or detainment first before taking me to court to prove with my evidence ?

it means the system is already biased, let it be I am unable to prove that the man killed him then you can then classify it as defamation, arresting before charging to court will stifle people coming out to speak the truth especially against big personalities...

It will also kill freedom of speech, the court should be the one deciding what is defamation and what is not defamation not the the police or big personalities...

So you mean murder suspects should not be arrested because the courts have not determined the guilty party yet? That is not how criminal law works. The police are tasked with investigating criminal activity, apprehending suspects and arraigning them before a competent court.

Brendaniel:
I just see this as Legal bullying, if you claimed somebody defamed you, you charge the person to court, let it now be that the person is rejecting court summons, then the court effects an arrest but...

You find out with legal bullying that happens a lot in Nigeria, it is the other way round, you claim someone defamed you, you arrest an detain the person before taking the person to court, haven't you already judged and sentenced the person before allowing the person to defend himself with evidence of his/her claim against you and you see some Nigerians here supporting this legal bullying...

I will list cases here for example:

1. Afe Babalola vs Farotimi - Legal Bullying

2. Mercy Johnson vs Angela Okorie - Legal Bullying

3. Peter Obi vs Adeyanju - Legal process

4. Erisco vs The pregnant woman - Legal Bullying

If we are to go by the examples listed above, to me, only Peter Obi followed the right process and has shown good leadership example among these people listed in that regard, even the Lady in the United States that accused Macron of marrying a man was not arrested, she was only charged to court and she said she will defend it with facts, same with those calling Michelle Obama a man, have you ever seen anyone of them arrested for doing that? Highest if Obama is angry, he will charge them to court, let it now be that the the court decides to arrest them.

Defamation is a criminal offence in Nigeria so you can be arrested for it. But I do agree most of these people are just using the system to bully their perceived enemies.

QuinQQ:
Give an example where anyone said they gave their lives to Muhammad or Buddha entered them and it changed their Lives. Jesus IS alive and actually interacts with people and enters people's hearts!

https://roundglassliving.com/meditation/articles/buddhism-helped-me-heal-from-addiction

Islam helped a man overcome addiction and homelessness: https://www./419762761835766/posts/2317119478766742/

Therefore Buddhism and Islam are true, when will you believe and convert?

QuinQQ:
But no one does, Muhammad either. It is always JESUS!

Wrong. Are you that sheltered? You don't know people of other faiths have miraculous claims as well?

Boomark:
Your reality is a useless reality.

You are deluded because you can't, didn't, and never had any encounter with God through prayers.

My teaching is for Christians alone. If you can't counter what I wrote with the scripture, then this place is not for you.

Bwahahahahahaha! It's the same reality we both inhabit, though you choose to believe in Jewish myths and whatnot.

All you need to do is demonstrate that your prayer can invoke your god. I bet you won't take the challenge though. LoLz.

Ok so why did you mention me then?

QuinQ:
It's implied. Come on

I don't see it the same way.

QuinQ:
Well, she wasn't able to do it for ten years but soon as she embraced Jesus, boom!

She wasn't able because she didn't turn her mind towards it. There is nothing supernatural about changing your mind or doing something you previously didn't want to.