₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Unfortunately, Bashir is using international law which fall under democratic norms here. And he's using it as a bedrock to defend his preference for sharia law. Ironically, the big question is if sharia law itself recognises natural law or democratic rights? Can you answer that question on behalf of Bashir? If it does not, how logical is it to build your argument for sharia law on a concept which it does not recognise nor align with?
Same goes for the murder of Christians. US law is using its own laws on human rights to demand protection for Christians. Does Sharia law recognize such protection for Christians and indeed people of other faiths in its domain? If it does not, is the US not going to be in conflict with Bashir? How then does Bashir intend to fight this cause?

Kukutente23:
You did not need to descend into insults. Only the weak indulge in insults in an intellectual debate. Be guided henceforth
If you read his links, you will realize that the modern view is that human rights is a progressive form of positive law as against natural law. In other words, when you use the word "human rights" you are already de-legitimizing the concept of natural rights.

Kukutente23:
Thank you for your links
I have read them and my arguments are valid. Natural law as you call it is a theory as attestd by both links. In science, a theory must be proven before it can be accepted as law. What was established from both links is that it is an ongoing debate older than modern civilisation. Some accept the existence of the divine rights while others contend its universality and applicability just as I have done....

Kukutente23:
The 19th century thinkers however disagreed with the force of morality in natural law theories. So you see, it is still a subject of debate and not a universal law as you posited.

Dtruthspeaker:
Have I not already given you examples of its practical uses since the beginning of the argument citing that every place in the world like them Yoruba, Bini, Ibo, exercised rights of migration, ownership of property, engaged in contract, conducted marriages, settled succession and inheritance, prosecuted and judged criminals etc even when there was no democracy and as you ignorantly say and there was no rights and law as you say?

So is it a theory where it has already been utilised and practiced by those who claim not to accept it?



Hope you see that this statement proves that they agree that Natural Law exists but what they contend with is the force of morality in the natural law? (Which is a separate and distinct topic of which since Cain murdered Abel, till the world ends, everyone everywhere feels the force of morality even if they do not always obey it. So, there really isn't any debate going on as it has been settled.

But as I said, this is a separate topic and it does not affect the fact that natural law is applied all over the world)

Dtruthspeaker:
Off point.
Again, you are dodging the question you find proves you wrong.

In which part of the world do the people not clamour for human rights?

Answer: None.

Dtruthspeaker:
See how you are shifting the post to proving shariah law is in tandem with natural law which is not the issue.

So the only valid thing you said is the bold.

And when you say international law, can you tell us the specific international law that provides for Bashir and US's rights?

DeepSight:
+.
Good. You are getting better.
Do you at least accept that there is natural law before positive law?

Kukutente23:
Again, you've gotten it all wrong!
Sharia law is not in tandem with the theory of natural law! Sharia law does not recognise right to life! Sharia law believes that Muslim life is more superior to the life of a kafir. Sharia embraces slavery and subjugation of women. How is it then in tandem with natural law? Are you sure you're on the same wavelength with this conversation?

Dtruthspeaker:
I just accused you of trying to shift the post to shariah law/natural law when it is not the issue. Yet you are still trying to change the post

Does this action not make it easy for someone to insult you?

If you know you cannot continue this enquiry reasonably and supply a reasonable or valid answer to the question "when you say international law, can you tell us the specific international law that provides for Bashir and US's rights?" Is it not best you keep get out of the thread instead of setting yourself up to be insalted?

Kukutente23:
Eerm have you been to Arab countries before? Who is clamoring for human rights in Arab countries and on what basis?

Kukutente23:
I am not responsible for your ability to comprehend. Your claim is that natural law is a universal law. I rejected that claim.

Kukutente23:
Now I'm showing you that sharia law does not obey natural law and you're asking me for the relevance of my post.

Kukutente23:
I want to believe you missed the point and not being intentionally petulant.
You have not made any serious point with your interjecting question.

Kukutente23:
The international law Bashir is relying on is the UN charter on self-determination.

Kukutente23:
Again, Bashir professes to prefer sharia law above and over any other law. He is benefiting from international laws that are not recognized nor provided for by the same sharia. Do you understand the contradiction now or you need to be spoon-fed further?

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you are trying to change post yet again by going backwards to issues that have been settled. And in your mind, you think you are smart being slippery, not real eyesing that you look very stoooop ... eeeeeeeeeee .D

Reject it all you want but the thread clearly shows that your rejection of it does not make sense and everything you said was invalid and unreasonable as sealed by the questions put to you which you severally dodged and in some occasions you refused answering them.

So, this argument has ended since, I just wanted to see how deep your edy OSI can go. I ain't ever met a person who loves being wauta.



I said this is Off Point and change of Post yet you are still talking about it, does this not prove how wauta u r?



Yet you kept dodging and dodging the question, clearly the point has been made already



Now see how you look like an egufē!

UN Charter is based on Natural Law

AI Overview
The UN declaration of self-determination is widely considered a principle of positive international law, rooted in natural law. its legal force derives from treaties and consistent state practice, and from natural law principles.

Connection to Natural Law Ideas
The modern concept of self-determination has origins in political philosophies that align with natural law thinking:

Consent of the Governed: Traced back to the American and French Revolutions, the idea that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed" reflects a belief in inherent, universal principles of justice and legitimacy that exist independent of enacted laws.
Justice: The very idea of self-determination is a derivative of natural law, as it embodies a fundamental principle of justice: that people have an inherent right to determine their own fate freely.



Who cares what Bashir prefers? Did anyone ask you? So do you see how silly you speak?

Kukutente23:
..."Natural Law School is a philosophical and jurisprudential framework centred on the belief in inherent, universal principles governing human conduct."

"Natural law is a philosophical concept that refers to a system of right or justice believed to be universal and inherent to human nature, rather than established by societal rules or positive law. It suggests that there are objective moral principles derived from nature that govern human conduct."
As you can see from the above. It is a system of belief not based on any scientific or empirical proof. So basically, there is no agreement of the existence of natural law. Rather, there is a belief in the existence of natural laws which form the basis for the jurisprudence. If you read further, you will see that the theory of natural law was debunked in the 19th century by such writers like Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham (see link 1). The skepticism about natural law theory still exists till today in some contemporary schools of thought.

Dtruthspeaker:
Where you not born to see that women finally got the rights to drive in Saudi Arabia in 2017 after years and years of clamouring for human rights and women rights?

Clearly, you do not have any reasonable thing to say.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you are trying to change post yet again by going backwards to issues that have been settled. And in your mind, you think you are smart being slippery, not real eyesing that you look very stoooop ... eeeeeeeeeee .D

Reject it all you want but the thread clearly shows that your rejection of it does not make sense and everything you said was invalid and unreasonable as sealed by the questions put to you which you severally dodged and in some occasions you refused answering them.

So, this argument has ended since, I just wanted to see how deep your edy OSI can go. I ain't ever met a person who loves being wauta.



I said this is Off Point and change of Post yet you are still talking about it, does this not prove how wauta u r?



Yet you kept dodging and dodging the question, clearly the point has been made already



Now see how you look like an egufē!

UN Charter is based on Natural Law

AI Overview
The UN declaration of self-determination is widely considered a principle of positive international law, rooted in natural law. its legal force derives from treaties and consistent state practice, and from natural law principles.

Connection to Natural Law Ideas
The modern concept of self-determination has origins in political philosophies that align with natural law thinking:

Consent of the Governed: Traced back to the American and French Revolutions, the idea that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of the governed" reflects a belief in inherent, universal principles of justice and legitimacy that exist independent of enacted laws.
Justice: The very idea of self-determination is a derivative of natural law, as it embodies a fundamental principle of justice: that people have an inherent right to determine their own fate freely.



Who cares what Bashir prefers? Did anyone ask you? So do you see how silly you speak?

Dtruthspeaker:
I Don't care what some pervertous persons wish to bend it into and the debunking is highly circumscribed. It did not challenge the real flow and power of Natural Law but went on to the areas where free will, (which is still again a power and gift of Natural Law) holds sway.

But the real eyeity is that we have all seen how people live and operated on Natural Law even without the need of belief.

No one needs belief to cry for justice when he is unfairly treated in contract. And no one needs belief to raise a natural law court like the ones the Yorubas, ibos and Edos have when they felt that they being deprived of their natural rights.

So, you see the anti natural law philosophers are talking rubbish trying to deceive young ordinary people like you.

Why do you think that all these anti natural law philosophers are always taught to young students?

It won't fly with adults for adults know a lot and have experienced a lot and can see through sheeats a lot

Kukutente23:
The UN declaration of self-determination is widely considered a principle of positive international law,
See how you fraudulently jumped this part in your quest for self-glorification.

Kukutente23:
Clownery
Have you ever heard of anti-law of mechanics
They do not exist because the laws of mechanics do not need your permission or acquiescence to hold.

Kukutente23:
The key word is that natural law is a system of belief not a law that exists by the force of nature. That's the solemn point you do not get.

.. That your so-called natural laws need your agreement before they can hold shows that they are not laws in their own rights but beliefs
Do you get it? Think man. It's a part of natural law

Kukutente23:
. Anything that's naturally occurring should not need your interference or agreement to hold

Dtruthspeaker:
Off point!



The operating point proves that it is a lie when they say Natural Law is a belief system for No one needs belief to cry out for justice when he is unfairly treated in contract. And no one needs belief to raise a court like the ones the Yorubas, ibos and Edos have when they felt that they are being deprived of their rights.



So as the ground is naturally occurring, it could not be interfered with yet we farm, mine and scatter the ground to build estates and cities on it.

A woman is natural occuring yet you seek her consent and agreement to hold and marry her.

So you see, you are talking absolute rubbish

Dtruthspeaker:
You already know that positive law means laws made by men, so the question is on what grounds were those laws made?

And there you saw the answer that they were based on Natural Law.

So, you see, you disgrace yourself and all other things you try raising are Off Point!

Kukutente23:
But it is positive law not natural law. Natural law is distinctly different from positive law. I believe the premise of Deepsight was to make that distinction clear. You seem to want to imply that positive law is part of natural law now.

Dtruthspeaker:
I already pointed out that as it's making by people based on any positive law in existence?

No!

So, it's settled.

And no, I do not imply that positive law is part of natural law, but ... thinking about it, I say it is part of natural law because parts of natural law are nearly always put into it

However, what I would have told, is still what I have said which is "positive law is based on natural law and arose from it"!

Kukutente23:
Do you think it is fair for one individual to claim that he and his generations have been chosen to rule over his fellow humans as Kings and thus summarily turns them to subjects?

Kukutente23:
For you to thinkk you are being robbed of your rights, you have to be aware of such rights in the first instance.

Kukutente23:
A man who believes all land is owned by the King will not claim he has a right to the land. Even in the Bible, there are numerous examples of those who let go of their lands for the king because they believe it belongs to him by right.

Kukutente23:
There are women who were married without their agreement and consent.

Kukutente23:
Secondly, and more importantly, marriage is not a natural law. It is a human invention (or God's if we go with the Bible) based on social interaction. If it were not so, we will not have different forms of marriage and even have those who choose to abstain from it

Kukutente23:
You have still failed to take note of the distinction between natural law and positive law. Natural laws are laws deemed to exist by the force of nature. Positive law is in effect, actions that the govt established upon the principles of natural laws are expected to enforce to ensure that the liberties granted under natural laws are enforced and protected.

Conversely, there are also negative laws which are actions the govt established upon the principles of natural law are expected to refrain from to ensure that the liberties granted under natural law are not infringed upon or denied an individual
I hope you can see the distinction now. That a law is made from positive law does not mean it is made from natural law. Rather, it is made to ensure and enforce natural laws.

Kukutente23:
Secondly, and more importantly, marriage is not a natural law. It is a human invention (or God's if we go with the Bible) based on social interaction. If it were not so, we will not have different forms of marriage and even have those who choose to abstain from it

Dtruthspeaker:
Is this not the principle of Natural Law at work?

https://www.nairaland.com/8555835/ned-nwoko-gets-48-hour-ultimatum#137380463

their tradition allows a woman to leave a marriage if she chooses, and her family must return the bride price to end the union formally.

According to them, Regina’s family had made several attempts to return the payment, but Nwoko allegedly refused to accept it.

They said if he continues to reject it, the money would be placed at the Ikeleke Quarter in Ogwashi-Uku, a traditional action that would signify the end of the marriage.

Meanwhile, in your positive law, your youslesss courts sometimes say that an aggrieved person is without remedy because your positive law (constitution) did not provide a solution. So how shall injustice not prevail? It is for this reason why you people say that the law can be exploited but it is in your fake man made laws that can be exploited and not Natural Law

Kukutente23:
Has Ned obeyed?