₦airaland Forum

how much can i sell a lhd 1996 C 180 mercedes benz Estate for? will i be able to bring it to Nigeria and how much will conversion cost? Thanks guys.

@Beaf, u are so right, no one is against the North but against the leaders who deprive their own people basic education and skills needed to survive in the modern World.

Online

Child Abuse Or Education- Islamic School
« on: Today at 11:50:49 AM »

Child abuse or Education?

Koranic School - Sudan


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYpZ9tbK_rI&feature=related

Child abuse or Education?

Koranic School - Sudan


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYpZ9tbK_rI&feature=related

@13volts, thanks 4 the information, I never thought there would be a problem with having a Muslim or christian leader anywhere in Nigeria as long as it`s done democratically. U are right about some Nairalanders  always looking for an excuse to paint the North bad. We are all responsible 4 the ills of Nigeria regardless of religion or ethnicity.

@13volts, I presume u are a Muslim Northerner and u love Nigeria.  If that is the case, can u honestly say it`s is in the interest of Nigeria and the Muslim north to keep on producing millions of young kids that will never learn anything other than the Koran while their counterparts in the south are busy learning the necessary skills needed to survive in a modern World.
As an enlightened person the struggle should be about putting a stop to the almaraji culture that keeps on producing millions of unskilled and uneducated adults who have nothing to offer  society other than the call of the Imams and Emirs, who only exploit them just to stay in power.  We gain nothing trying to score cheap points, by comparing the incomparable. Tell me how many southerners do u see  going around the country begging?

Those  insulting Ndigbo because of  prof mekusxx`s hatefull comment s about Yoruba people are themselves exhibiting the same ethnic bigotry and ignorance.

@mekusxxx,  there is no need to belittle other people, remember all these hatefull comments u have posted about Yoruba people are exactly the same hatefull things many white people say about black people, regardless of if u are Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa or from north America.  We can build so much with love and tolerance but hate will only tear us apart.
Igbo kwenu, Nigeria kwenu

@Dede1, this is the problem of Nigeria, we only think of ourselves and cant see beyond our ethnic affiliation. We are all marginalised in Nigeria, regardless of ethnicity, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The struggle should be for the suffering masses who cut across all ethnic groups and not just Ndigbo. Look at the bigger picture, unity of purpose for a better Nigeria.

If our law makers had done their job properly they would never have made Mallam Sanusi CBN Governor, anyone who as read his published articles would know the man his better suited to be an Imam, not the head of a financial institution like the central bank, the appointment would have made sense if Nigeria was a muslim republic and not a secular state.

To understand his mind and thinking we citizens of Nigeria need to read some of his article , please find below links to some of his published articles.

http://www.uga.edu/islam/sanusi.html

“Between the Shariah and ‘Barbarism’ ” (link fixed 20 August, 2005.)     http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/barticles/between_the_shariah_and.htm

Yorubas are the Problem with Nigeria - By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi    
http://www.elombah.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=868:yorubas-are-the-problem-with-nigeria-by-sanusi-lamido-sanusi&catid=57:sanusi-lamido-sanusi&Itemid=79

The Yoruba elite were the first, in 1962, to attempt a violent overthrow of an elected government in this country. In 1966, it was the violence in the West which provided an avenue for the putsch of 15th January. After Chief Awolowo lost to Shagari in 1983 elections, it was the discontent and bad publicity in the South-West which led to the Buhari intervention.


iii.The Igbo Factor and the Reasonable Limits of Retribution.
 
The Igbo people of Nigeria have made a mark in the history of this nation. They led the first successful military coup which eliminated the Military and Political leaders of other regions while letting off Igbo leaders. Nwafor Orizu, then Senate President, in consultation with President Azikiwe, subverted the constitution and handed over power to Aguiyi-Ironsi.  Subsequent developments, including attempts at humiliating other peoples, led to the counter-coup and later the civil war. The Igbos themselves must acknowledge that they have a large part of the blame for shattering the unity of this country.

@tenor777, Thanks. if hard working people can be found in all classes of society, what then is the problem with showing the hard working and downtrodden, who happen to be the majority of Lagosians, are u not aware that more than 70% of people in Lagos, live in poverty. I presume u will rather see the rich and mighty who constitute only about 15% of the population. Sorry mate the programme was about those voiceless 70% that live in poverty, who have been forgotten by Nigerian media and NollyWood. It`s a shame it took a foreign press to give them a voice.

Reporting on the ills of society is a tradition that took root in Europe almost 200yrs ago, it as since become a tool for bringing about change in society. we Nigerians need to embrace this culture if we want positive change in our society.


Social novel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social novels, also known as social problem novels or realist fiction, originated in the eighteenth century but gained a popular following in the nineteenth century with the rise of the Victorian Era and in many ways was a reaction to industrialization, social, political and economic issues and movements. In the 1830s the social novel saw resurgence as emphasis on widespread reforms of government and society emerged, and acted as a literary means of protest and awareness of abuses of government, industry and other repercussions suffered by those who did not profit from England's economic prosperity.[1] The sensationalized accounts and stories of the working class poor were directed toward middle class audiences to help incite sympathy and action towards pushing
Different sub-genres of the social novel included the industrial novel that focused on the country’s working class rural and urban poor and also the later ‘condition of England’ novel that was geared toward education, suffrage and other social movements. Deplorable conditions in factories and mines, the plight of child labor and endangered women, and the constant threat of rising criminality and [epidemics] due to over-crowding and poor sanitation [2] were all laced into the storyline lines of these novels. On a moral level the social novel became the medium for authors who either took in common experiences of a marginalized group or those in the midst of dire circumstances and composed sensationalized stories for members of the middle and upper classes of Victorian society.

@sagamite , u are right about the programme not being balanced, instead of showing only honest, hard working and kind Nigerians it should have also shown the corrupt, greedy and fraudulent Nigerians that we are better known for by the rest of the World.

Welcome to Lagos is an insight into the spirit of Lagos and a tribute to voiceless people of Lagos.
The title is so fitting for the programme because it captures what Lagos is about, hard work, Resilience, ingenuity, courage, entrepreneurship and that will to overcome against all odds, that is the spirit of Lagos. The subjects in the documentary embody all these essential characteristics needed to survive in that jungle of a city called Lagos.

By Alice-Azania Jarvis
Friday, 16 April 2010
BBC

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-television-welcome-to-lagos-bbc2-outnumbered-bbc1-1946164.html


In part one of the BBC2's new three-part documentary, Welcome to Lagos, we got a fascinating look at the enterprising and, at times, ingenious way in which a city's inhabitants respond to population explosion. Irritatingly, our narrator seemed determined to give us something else entirely. Surveying the rubbish-strewn landscape and day-to-day poverty of the city's working class, his rosy tones were full to bursting with pollyannarisms, like a tourist admiring the "quaintness" of foreign cultures. It was all so vibrant, he observed. Everything was there to inspire. I wonder what the programme's industrious stars, so determined to work themselves out of their current situations, would make of it all. Maybe they'd laugh and give up. If money makes you so enamoured with poverty, what on earth is the point of having it?

It didn't matter, in the end. Lagos had plenty to compensate, and watching the way of life was fascinating stuff in itself. And, in truth, last night wasn't without its uplifting moments. Watching Eric (nickname: "Slender" slogging his guts out as a "scavenger" on the Olusosun rubbish dump in order to fund his music career couldn't be anything but inspiring. It's especially so when we get to seem him, scavenging rags discarded in favour of "cool T-shirt", in the studio, recording his album. Inspiring, and endearing, but also a little tragic. Eric's life is one of permanent identity-shifting. His music-industry acquaintances know nothing of his toiling life on the dump. They just know Slender, self-styled hotshot, firmly en route to fame.

Equally stirring was the story of Joseph, who works on the dump "out of love for (his) family". "If there was somewhere even stinkier," he reflected. "I would go there. If it paid more." He marvels at the quality of the cast-offs he finds: a toasted-sandwich maker that functions fully, other bits and bobs that need but a tweak to get them going. How much the lucky waste. Joseph took us home, bursting with pride to meet his "beautiful wife" and "the future miss worlds", his daughters Peace and Patience. He was about to hold a birthday party for his youngest, and wanted the best on offer – cakes, sweets, toys, the lot – so had started working extra nights to pay for it. Talking of his own childhood made him cry, and he wants things to be different for them.
And there's no doubt that Lagos's growth (by 2015 it is predicted to be the third largest city in the world) has given rise to some phenomenal entrepreneurs. The dump itself was testimony to that: it's fully stocked with cafes, bars, mosques and even manicurists, should its inhabitants require them. According to our narrator, Olusosun and its 1,000 residents have managed to remain largely unknown to Lagos's 16 million inhabitants, a fact which, if true, is staggering. Still, while we might marvel at the ingenuity of its residents' business schemes, and admire their determined work ethic, it's impossible to get away from the gnawing poignancy of it all. Eric's big dreams all came rather horribly undone when, after a night out on the town to promote his record (ironically, he appeared to be on the verge of hitting the big time), he returned home only to get embroiled in a brawl. He wound up near-blinding his opponent and being thrown into the clink. He got off, fortunately, though only after borrowing thousands for a lawyer and an out-of-court settlement.

@Tensor777, glad to see someone that can see the programme for what it`s. Most of the posters here keep on missing the point of the programme, there is nothing wrong with working, re-circling waste, it`s  done in most developed countries. As mentioned by Tensor777, these people are are taking advantage of a gap in the market where there is no proper waste management programme in place. They are entrepreneurs, filling out a gap in the market for re circled waste materials. They don`t need charity, welfare or pity, what they need is encouragement and ideas on how to improve the trade, especially on the health and safety side. Maybe find ways of separating waste at source of pick up, like it`s done here in England and most parts of western Europe. They have waste bins for different waste products that can be picked up from source and sold to re circling plants. T

The richest woman in china today, Zhang Yin made her money from recircling waste materials.These people can also make a fortune if only they were better informed on how modern waste management works.


We all can`t be doctors or engineers, some will work sweeping the streets and some sitting in an office, but at the end of the day every worker is contributing to society. The problem of Nigeria is the fact that we only respect big titled jobs, the bigmanism culture and not those that are actualy contributing to society.

The issue should be when will Nigerian tv channels and producers start producing programmes that shows the real life of ur average Nigerian and their everyday struggle? I find the programme inspirational and positive, showing hard working Nigerians, who are organised, disciplined and kind. These are positive images unlike the Nollywood/NTA programmes that only show programmes that glorify greed, corruption and spiritual fairy tale stories. Welcome to Lagos is a positive tribute to the people of Lagos and their resilience, that strong will to survive and make the best out of life, no matter how hard.

Eko akete, ilu ogbon(city of sharpness/knowledge)

Thanks to BBC and the producer.

BETWEEN THE SHARIAH AND "BARBARISM"



BY

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/barticles/between_the_shariah_and.htm


My father died on May 8, this year. He left behind one wife, four sons and three daughters. His debts were settled within one week of his death. What is left forms the Estate which is to be shared as follows: His wife gets one-eighth. The rest is shared among the children with each son getting twice the share of each daughter. In precise arithmetic terms, my father’s estate will be shared into eighty-eight equal parts. Eleven parts go to his wife. Each son gets fourteen parts. Each daughter gets seven parts making up the total {(11x 1) + (14 x 4) + (7x3) = 88}.

None of my father’s children is subjected to the ignominy of a DNA test to establish his paternity. None of our mothers is subjected to the humiliation of having to prove she was not an adulteress. No product of an illicit union, if any, can share in the estate. No son gets more than the next son. No daughter gets more than the next daughter. Had he left 2, 3, or 4 wives, the eleven parts given to his one wife would have been equally divided/shared between/among his wives. No party will go to court and defame my father’s loving memory. No scandals follow. No litigation that serves to split this family after his death. My father could not have denied any of his children or wives a share of his estate. He could have made a will, but his power in this regard is delimited by two clauses: He could will nothing to any one who already has a share of his estate by right, (so he could not, for instance favour a particular child or spouse over others). He also could not will away more than one-third of his estate and thus deny his family the inheritance. A son gets twice the share of the daughter because he is expected to take care of her and his own wife and kids. The daughter who is cared for by her brother and her husband takes half the share of a son.

This is the Shariah, the Divine law of Allah which some persons have taken to calling "barbaric". The wisdom of this Law, as exemplified in the law of inheritance, can be seen in each and everyone of its aspects: In the law of personal status, in contract, in criminal law etc. It is within the context of what is civilised and what is barbaric that I write this essay. I will not discuss the constitutionality of the Shariah as adopted by some states since our constitution says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Pronouncements on the constitutionality or otherwise of Shariah are, going by the same constitution, the preserve of the Judiciary. Until we have a contrary judgment, we shall take it that the actions of Zamfara, Sokoto and Kano States are constitutional.

This leaves us with the following questions, which underpin the debate and need to be thoroughly discussed.

What are the limits of personal liberty and when can the state be said to be infringing on individual rights?

What is the yardstick for judging a law as "barbaric" or "civilised" ? and

Is it the duty of the State to enforce "piety" and does it make sense even to try?

Many of those who parade themselves as prophets of "liberalism" do not acknowledge that it is a relative concept, in their case derived from known foundation in western secular philosophy. The most often-cited basis for defining "liberty" in the Western World in John Stuart Mill’s maxim: "over his own mind, and over his own body, man is complete master provided he causes no harm to another." A society which accepts this maxim builds a whole body of laws around it. It defines its conception of liberty and human rights and the limits of state intervention based on this maxim. But it is nonetheless a maxim, proposed by a man at a point in time living in a particular socio-cultural milieu. To insist that all societies must be governed by this maxim at all times is at best self-centred, at worst an insult to other cultures.

This is not the place to discuss the merits and demerits of Mill’s maxim, or his own personal religious inclinations. The point is that "human rights", "freedom", "liberty" etc are not objective, universal concepts. Underlying their contemporary usage is the value-judgment that anyone can do anything and say anything which makes him happy so long as he "harms" no one else. But what is the nature of this "harm"? To date, it has been problematic. If a couple chose to have sex on the Marina does the act "harm" passers-by if their sensibilities are offended? If two homosexuals choose to kiss each other on the beach in front of your twelve year-old son is there harm in that? Where do you draw the line and who decides this? These are subjective questions.

The same principle underlies the determination of the role of the state in Islamic Law. The Islamic delimitation of personal liberty is clearly narrower than that of Western Liberal Democracy. Yet it has two advantages: First, it is more clearly defined than Mill’s maxim and second, Muslims believe the line is drawn by a Divine Law-Giver, and not subject to negotiation by Muslim peoples in time and space.

In Islamic Laws every thing prohibited by God and His prophet is a crime. Unlike in Western law where only that which has a specified punishment is a crime, in Islamic law every crime is punishable but not every punishment is specified. The role of the State is to ensure that, in a person’s public conduct, he does not commit a crime or any act likely to lead to one . Islamic law does not empower the State to infringe on the right of an individual citizen. It cannot break into a man’s room and punish him for adultery. It can not plant a camera in a hotel room and punish a man based on a recording of a sexual act or drinking spree. But if a man and a woman choose to have sex where four eye witnesses actually see coitus, or if a man chooses to drink his beer in front of his house instead of inside his living room, the act immediately leaves the realm of private conscience to one of public morals and the state punishes this severely.

There is an interesting anecdote in Islamic Law relating to the Second Caliph of Islam, "Vmar. It is said that, having received information that on a particular house in which people gathered to brew and drink wine, he surprised the party one night by scaling the wall from the back and announcing: " I have caught you !". According to the anecdote, the persons so caught were completely unperturbed. They said: "O! Commander of the Faithful! You have caught us in one crime, but in the process you committed three! Allah says (Qur’an XXIV:27) ‘O ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace (salam) upon the folk thereof" You did neither. Allah says (II:189), ‘it is not righteousness that ye go to houses by the backs thereof---- so go to houses by the gates thereof!’ You entered our house by the back. Finally, Allah says (XLIX:12) ‘and spy not’ You have spied on us." On this the Caliph was said to have taken his leave and was unable to do anything. Like all anecdotes, questions has been asked about the authenticity of this one. But that is not the point here.

The pedagogical point is that the Shariah does not give the state limitless powers to infringe on personal liberty. It however gives the state the right to limit personal liberty to the purely personal realm.

Having accepted this principle, just like the West accepted Mill’s , Muslim Society considers any laws built around it and consistent with it proper and rejects the suggestion that they infringe on personal freedom.

The State does not stop a woman from wearing what she likes inside her house but it stops her from dressing publicly in a manner that is likely to attract an ordinary man, as this is one of those things leading to another and up to adultery. When a man drinks in his house and sleeps that is his problem. When he comes out and mingles with people, or drives, others are at risk from his actions since he is not in complete control of his senses etc.

This brings me to second point: what, exactly is the yardstick for declaring a law barbaric or civilized? A few people have made the point that to say the electric chair, for instance is civilized while cutting off a thief’s hand is not, is a purely subjective matter. I think we can go beyond that and have a rational basis for making comparisons. A body of laws is only good as the type of society it creates. Take Nigeria today, where the Shariah is not in force. In Lagos, all of us are victims of thieves and robbers. In broad daylight we move round wound up windscreens, held hostage by Area Boys. The spread of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexual harassment in Schools and other vices is a result of an implicit acceptance of the Western principle of sexual liberation and belief that illicit sex is not a vice so long as the parties are happy doing it. This is not just in non-Muslim areas. The values of the Muslims have also been eroded through constant contact with what was once viewed with dismay. Pregnancy before marriage has become the norm in certain cultures which fifty, even twenty years ago considered it a scandal. There are many violent crimes resulting from drug-addiction and alcoholism.

Now compare this society with ‘totalitarian’ Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. You find there that people are safe and secure and the only persons who need fear are the criminals. Instead of citizens living in perpetual fear of criminals, it is the criminals who live in perpetual fear of the law. The thought of losing a limb, or a hand and foot is a strong deterrent. Women of easy virtue still exist, but they do not advertise it and certainly do not tempt a man who is not himself positively looking for them. You can send your daughter to school without fear for her virtue. Today, some Nigerian "elders" are asking their children not to go to states implementing Shariah for NYSC. The Shariah will evidently stop their sons and daughters from "having a good time" dressing indecently, enjoying free sex, drinking at parties etc. May be this is what some people call civilization, in which case the Shariah law is "barbaric". For many men of religion this is called barbarism and the state which takes decisive steps to check it is civilized.

I will go beyond that and take the example of theft. Islamic Law cuts of the hand of a thief once his crime meets all the stiff conditions defining it in law. The law cuts of what Bola Ige calls " the offending instrument," and frees the man to go and live with his family. What does our "civilized" law do? It gives him accommodation and feeds him for months or years in a place called a "prison" it keeps him in the company of "experts" with "varied experience" who teach him more sophisticated and more violent techniques for his craft. In addition to petty theft, he probably now learns how to procure a weapon, and is likely introduced to the "joys of homosexual relations" in the cell. After this period of accommodation and first-class training at the expense of the state, he is brought out to a society in which he is stigmatized. This frustrated character is unleashed on innocent citizens. This is our civilized law.

The Shariah’s position is that a criminal who has been punished (say, by cutting off the hand) has been purified from his crime. He carries no stigma. Besides, he alone bears the brunt of his punishment. In our ‘civilized’ law, we punish the thief’s wife and children by separating them from their husband, father and bread winner for no crime of theirs. Which law, tell me is more just? Which one is more barbaric?

Now to the final question in this debate. Is introduction of Shariah an attempt to enforce personal piety? Is religion not a personal matter, which means the State should try to enforce piety? You can force a woman to dress modestly; you can not change the desire in her heart to be a harlot by force. You can deter a man from stealing in Zamfara, this does not mean he will not steal in Abia. You can deprive a man of access to prostitutes in Kano, he can always choose to have a good time in Lagos. The State, by enforcing Shariah laws does not pretend to manufacture good Muslims. What it does is the following:

First, it creates an environment conducive to all Muslims who wish to live according to their faith to do so without temptation, distraction or trepidation. Second, it forces everyone to keep his personal decision not to comply with the moral codes governing society to operate according to his conscience but in a personal environment. No one should undermine public moral through indecent exposure. Third, it provides one of the bulwarks, but not the only or even the best one, for creating a pious community. To the law must be added preaching, admonition, good example, and the effort to create a welfare state- the eradication of poverty, illiteracy and disease. In short, the Shariah law does not enforce "religion". It however creates an environment conducive to its development.

BETWEEN THE SHARIAH AND "BARBARISM"

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/barticles/between_the_shariah_and.htm

BY

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI




My father died on May 8, this year. He left behind one wife, four sons and three daughters. His debts were settled within one week of his death. What is left forms the Estate which is to be shared as follows: His wife gets one-eighth. The rest is shared among the children with each son getting twice the share of each daughter. In precise arithmetic terms, my father’s estate will be shared into eighty-eight equal parts. Eleven parts go to his wife. Each son gets fourteen parts. Each daughter gets seven parts making up the total {(11x 1) + (14 x 4) + (7x3) = 88}.

None of my father’s children is subjected to the ignominy of a DNA test to establish his paternity. None of our mothers is subjected to the humiliation of having to prove she was not an adulteress. No product of an illicit union, if any, can share in the estate. No son gets more than the next son. No daughter gets more than the next daughter. Had he left 2, 3, or 4 wives, the eleven parts given to his one wife would have been equally divided/shared between/among his wives. No party will go to court and defame my father’s loving memory. No scandals follow. No litigation that serves to split this family after his death. My father could not have denied any of his children or wives a share of his estate. He could have made a will, but his power in this regard is delimited by two clauses: He could will nothing to any one who already has a share of his estate by right, (so he could not, for instance favour a particular child or spouse over others). He also could not will away more than one-third of his estate and thus deny his family the inheritance. A son gets twice the share of the daughter because he is expected to take care of her and his own wife and kids. The daughter who is cared for by her brother and her husband takes half the share of a son.

This is the Shariah, the Divine law of Allah which some persons have taken to calling "barbaric". The wisdom of this Law, as exemplified in the law of inheritance, can be seen in each and everyone of its aspects: In the law of personal status, in contract, in criminal law etc. It is within the context of what is civilised and what is barbaric that I write this essay. I will not discuss the constitutionality of the Shariah as adopted by some states since our constitution says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Pronouncements on the constitutionality or otherwise of Shariah are, going by the same constitution, the preserve of the Judiciary. Until we have a contrary judgment, we shall take it that the actions of Zamfara, Sokoto and Kano States are constitutional.

This leaves us with the following questions, which underpin the debate and need to be thoroughly discussed.

What are the limits of personal liberty and when can the state be said to be infringing on individual rights?

What is the yardstick for judging a law as "barbaric" or "civilised" ? and

Is it the duty of the State to enforce "piety" and does it make sense even to try?

Many of those who parade themselves as prophets of "liberalism" do not acknowledge that it is a relative concept, in their case derived from known foundation in western secular philosophy. The most often-cited basis for defining "liberty" in the Western World in John Stuart Mill’s maxim: "over his own mind, and over his own body, man is complete master provided he causes no harm to another." A society which accepts this maxim builds a whole body of laws around it. It defines its conception of liberty and human rights and the limits of state intervention based on this maxim. But it is nonetheless a maxim, proposed by a man at a point in time living in a particular socio-cultural milieu. To insist that all societies must be governed by this maxim at all times is at best self-centred, at worst an insult to other cultures.

This is not the place to discuss the merits and demerits of Mill’s maxim, or his own personal religious inclinations. The point is that "human rights", "freedom", "liberty" etc are not objective, universal concepts. Underlying their contemporary usage is the value-judgment that anyone can do anything and say anything which makes him happy so long as he "harms" no one else. But what is the nature of this "harm"? To date, it has been problematic. If a couple chose to have sex on the Marina does the act "harm" passers-by if their sensibilities are offended? If two homosexuals choose to kiss each other on the beach in front of your twelve year-old son is there harm in that? Where do you draw the line and who decides this? These are subjective questions.

The same principle underlies the determination of the role of the state in Islamic Law. The Islamic delimitation of personal liberty is clearly narrower than that of Western Liberal Democracy. Yet it has two advantages: First, it is more clearly defined than Mill’s maxim and second, Muslims believe the line is drawn by a Divine Law-Giver, and not subject to negotiation by Muslim peoples in time and space.

In Islamic Laws every thing prohibited by God and His prophet is a crime. Unlike in Western law where only that which has a specified punishment is a crime, in Islamic law every crime is punishable but not every punishment is specified. The role of the State is to ensure that, in a person’s public conduct, he does not commit a crime or any act likely to lead to one . Islamic law does not empower the State to infringe on the right of an individual citizen. It cannot break into a man’s room and punish him for adultery. It can not plant a camera in a hotel room and punish a man based on a recording of a sexual act or drinking spree. But if a man and a woman choose to have sex where four eye witnesses actually see coitus, or if a man chooses to drink his beer in front of his house instead of inside his living room, the act immediately leaves the realm of private conscience to one of public morals and the state punishes this severely.

There is an interesting anecdote in Islamic Law relating to the Second Caliph of Islam, "Vmar. It is said that, having received information that on a particular house in which people gathered to brew and drink wine, he surprised the party one night by scaling the wall from the back and announcing: " I have caught you !". According to the anecdote, the persons so caught were completely unperturbed. They said: "O! Commander of the Faithful! You have caught us in one crime, but in the process you committed three! Allah says (Qur’an XXIV:27) ‘O ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own without first announcing your presence and invoking peace (salam) upon the folk thereof" You did neither. Allah says (II:189), ‘it is not righteousness that ye go to houses by the backs thereof---- so go to houses by the gates thereof!’ You entered our house by the back. Finally, Allah says (XLIX:12) ‘and spy not’ You have spied on us." On this the Caliph was said to have taken his leave and was unable to do anything. Like all anecdotes, questions has been asked about the authenticity of this one. But that is not the point here.

The pedagogical point is that the Shariah does not give the state limitless powers to infringe on personal liberty. It however gives the state the right to limit personal liberty to the purely personal realm.

Having accepted this principle, just like the West accepted Mill’s , Muslim Society considers any laws built around it and consistent with it proper and rejects the suggestion that they infringe on personal freedom.

The State does not stop a woman from wearing what she likes inside her house but it stops her from dressing publicly in a manner that is likely to attract an ordinary man, as this is one of those things leading to another and up to adultery. When a man drinks in his house and sleeps that is his problem. When he comes out and mingles with people, or drives, others are at risk from his actions since he is not in complete control of his senses etc.

This brings me to second point: what, exactly is the yardstick for declaring a law barbaric or civilized? A few people have made the point that to say the electric chair, for instance is civilized while cutting off a thief’s hand is not, is a purely subjective matter. I think we can go beyond that and have a rational basis for making comparisons. A body of laws is only good as the type of society it creates. Take Nigeria today, where the Shariah is not in force. In Lagos, all of us are victims of thieves and robbers. In broad daylight we move round wound up windscreens, held hostage by Area Boys. The spread of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexual harassment in Schools and other vices is a result of an implicit acceptance of the Western principle of sexual liberation and belief that illicit sex is not a vice so long as the parties are happy doing it. This is not just in non-Muslim areas. The values of the Muslims have also been eroded through constant contact with what was once viewed with dismay. Pregnancy before marriage has become the norm in certain cultures which fifty, even twenty years ago considered it a scandal. There are many violent crimes resulting from drug-addiction and alcoholism.

Now compare this society with ‘totalitarian’ Islamic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. You find there that people are safe and secure and the only persons who need fear are the criminals. Instead of citizens living in perpetual fear of criminals, it is the criminals who live in perpetual fear of the law. The thought of losing a limb, or a hand and foot is a strong deterrent. Women of easy virtue still exist, but they do not advertise it and certainly do not tempt a man who is not himself positively looking for them. You can send your daughter to school without fear for her virtue. Today, some Nigerian "elders" are asking their children not to go to states implementing Shariah for NYSC. The Shariah will evidently stop their sons and daughters from "having a good time" dressing indecently, enjoying free sex, drinking at parties etc. May be this is what some people call civilization, in which case the Shariah law is "barbaric". For many men of religion this is called barbarism and the state which takes decisive steps to check it is civilized.

I will go beyond that and take the example of theft. Islamic Law cuts of the hand of a thief once his crime meets all the stiff conditions defining it in law. The law cuts of what Bola Ige calls " the offending instrument," and frees the man to go and live with his family. What does our "civilized" law do? It gives him accommodation and feeds him for months or years in a place called a "prison" it keeps him in the company of "experts" with "varied experience" who teach him more sophisticated and more violent techniques for his craft. In addition to petty theft, he probably now learns how to procure a weapon, and is likely introduced to the "joys of homosexual relations" in the cell. After this period of accommodation and first-class training at the expense of the state, he is brought out to a society in which he is stigmatized. This frustrated character is unleashed on innocent citizens. This is our civilized law.

The Shariah’s position is that a criminal who has been punished (say, by cutting off the hand) has been purified from his crime. He carries no stigma. Besides, he alone bears the brunt of his punishment. In our ‘civilized’ law, we punish the thief’s wife and children by separating them from their husband, father and bread winner for no crime of theirs. Which law, tell me is more just? Which one is more barbaric?

Now to the final question in this debate. Is introduction of Shariah an attempt to enforce personal piety? Is religion not a personal matter, which means the State should try to enforce piety? You can force a woman to dress modestly; you can not change the desire in her heart to be a harlot by force. You can deter a man from stealing in Zamfara, this does not mean he will not steal in Abia. You can deprive a man of access to prostitutes in Kano, he can always choose to have a good time in Lagos. The State, by enforcing Shariah laws does not pretend to manufacture good Muslims. What it does is the following:

First, it creates an environment conducive to all Muslims who wish to live according to their faith to do so without temptation, distraction or trepidation. Second, it forces everyone to keep his personal decision not to comply with the moral codes governing society to operate according to his conscience but in a personal environment. No one should undermine public moral through indecent exposure. Third, it provides one of the bulwarks, but not the only or even the best one, for creating a pious community. To the law must be added preaching, admonition, good example, and the effort to create a welfare state- the eradication of poverty, illiteracy and disease. In short, the Shariah law does not enforce "religion". It however creates an environment conducive to its development.

@Ndu-Chucks, we all want the president to get better and most have compassion for him, the problem is the disrespect of Nigeria and it`s Constitution that is going on in Yaraduar`s name . In a proper democracy the health status of a sitting shouldn`t be a secret. The Gov`t should have access to his health status, I believe it`s criminal of the cabinet not to have access to the President. Suppose he his being held prisoner and because of his ill health can`t fight back.

how much is`t to convert from right hand to left hand?

@sigo10, who sells burnt brick for the price u quoted, do u have the contact details. How many pieces of burnt clay brick is needed to build a three bed bungalow house, what is the size of the clay brick, is quality good.
Thanks

"red burnt brick 260,naira per bundle and eleven pieces make a bundle"

The phrase Ummah Wahida in the Qur'an (the "One Community" refers to all of the Islamic world unified. The Quran says: “You [Muslims] are the best nation brought out for Mankind, commanding what is righteous (Ma'ruf - lit. "recognized [as good]" and forbidding what is wrong (Munkar - lit. "unrecognized [as good]", ” [3:110].

Sudan by deporting fellow muslim brothers from Nigeria is not exactly living up to the principle of the muslim Ummah. The Koran says all muslim are brothers, u do not deport ur brother.

@Pafun, what is a loser`s tale? We have to remember that the World is diverse, we are not all the same, there are those who brag about how rich they are and are truly rich and we have those that also brag about being rich but actually have Nil. U can`t paint everyone with the same brush.

There is no reason to mock an honest day`s work. That is the discipline and integrity that Nigeria needs to move forward, we have to start respecting people that actually work hard instead of only rich people. With such attitude it`s no wonder we have thieving rulers instead of dedicated leaders.

@Afam, u have said it all of what needs to be said.  

To add a few points, the reason many Nigerians migrate to Europe or America isn`t to be big oga(big boss) but to have access to better health service, decent education, a decent home, constant electricity, good roads, good security, access to clean water and decent basic wages to live on that pays the bills and looks after the family. If being a cab driver or street cleaner in Europe or America is what it takes to have these basic primary needs of the modern era, so be it.  Pride will not feed ur family or provide these basic needs.

Being educated isn`t about being big oga but more about a mind set. Education is meant to provides us with the necessary tools to reason and contribute positively to the society we live in, it`s not so u can become some big boss. Judging by the comments on this thread it seems like our people only cram books rather than get educated.

I personally know cab drivers, mechanics and builders  here in England that have loads of money. I also know many in these trades that have no money, it`s all about the individual and how driven the person is.  

Big manism is what is killing us in Nigeria, what is wrong with an honest day`s work that pays the bill? We need to learn humility in Nigeria, that is part of being educated.

@Ndu-Chuks, u reasoning is flawed. The World knows corruption is the root of our problems and that is the same thing u are advocating here. This type of mind set is the reason Nigeria is bleeped.

@Lanre, u should condemn the madness being done in the name of Islam all over the World or have u sold ur heart to the devil. Man and his evil religion.

@Lanre, u need to study Yoruba history, Islam was brought to Yoruba land through violence. Remember old Oyo and Ilorin were conquered by fulani jihadist. We were only saved by the British. Us man Danfodio was on a mission to forcefully turn all Yoruba people to Muslims or die. Shine ur eyes read ur history.

@Neutralman, as a human being, ur statement is sad, cold blooded and void of any human feelings. It`s all about u and your people. Let go of this never ending blame game, the Biafran war ended 40yrs ago and must of the innocent women and children killed in the Jos massacre were not even born then. There is a place and time 4 everything and this is definitely not the right time to bring on your Biafran war, blame game and bias comments. This is a time for compassion and solidarity with the family and friends of all the innocent people that are being killed all over Nigeria.  

Remember next time Igbo people are killed in large numbers, some of us will remind u of  this  statement u made , "what goes around comes around"

By the way what genocide was committed by middle belt people against against millions of Igbo people? Do u have any reliable link as prove of this so called genocide?

@mikeansy, your comment makes so much sense. We need to stop the North vs south, Igbo vs yoruba, west vs east, south south vs east and so on. The challenge like u rightly said is to dwell on the issues which affects all Nigerians, at the end of the day we are all marginalised by the power brokers who continue to use the divide and rule tactics to lord and rule over us. 

We all suffer from the issues of Unemployment, lack of security, high illiteracy, bad infrastructure, lawlessness and so on, these are the issues we should concentrate on, instead of dwelling on ethnicity, religion or the evils of the civil war.  We are not exactly united on these issues  but we are all united on the issue of wanting a better place we can all call home. The challenge is uniting all the oppressed people of Nigeria to fight those that are bent on keeping us down.

Your Obama example says it all, if his campaign was based on black suffering instead of the problems facing all Americans we all know he would never have won the American election. About time we start talking about the problem facing all Nigerians.

@Ndu_Chuks,  The Constitution clearly states that the president must inform the senate any time he/she is flying out of the country 4 medical or leisure reasons, Yaraua didn`t do this, that is a clear violation of the Nigerian Constitution which he swear ed to up hold. Violation of the Constitution I think is enough grounds to start impeaching procedure. But if the president was in no position to write when he became ill, then he wouldn`t be guilty as he was not in a position to write.  What does the Constitution say when this happens?  If there is no provision in the Constitution for such common eventuality, then i would say the Constitution is weak and not well thought out.

If The BBC  interview can be taken as evidence of a written latter by Yaradua, then it shows he was able at some point able to communicate directly to the Nigerian Senate of his absence, but rather chose not to and instead chose to communicate with a foreign press. This is the disrespect not just to the senators but to the people of Nigeria, we are being taken for a ride.

If the great law minds were following the Constitution we would already have the motion to impeach in place by now. Unless it can be proven that Yaradua as been incapacitated since the first day of his illness. Then again we would have to look at what the Constitution says, this might be the real problem and not knowing his condition.