₦airaland Forum

VolvoS60:
^^^^
Ok.

I really don't have much to say to to those who, as you say are using "abusive words and hatred" on this matter. Name calling adds nothing to this discussion and so I avoid calling on those posters who are so angry and emotional that they have refused to address this matter in a logical manner.

Having said that, I am going somewhere with my questions on this issue. I am interested in your statement about how you apply "secular law to things that are constitutional". I am also interested in your views about the adoption of Islamic Sharia law as state law by several state legislatures in Northern Nigeria. I am sure you are aware that some parties have challenged the adoption in court. But I want to know what you think about the issue.

We are gradually going out of d original topic. The topic is "Law school codes of conduct vs National Constitution".

I will llke to answer your question in a new trend.

Thanks.

Siralgebra04:
My silence doesn't mean i don't av ur answer.
If nobody challenges it, good! But once someone is able to challenge it, then it is contitutional for such surbordinate law which is in disagreement with d National Constitution to be reviewed.

But i wonder y u fail to ask pple who av been giving sentimental and baseless opinions on dis issue. I av not in any way attached sentiment to dis issue. I apply secular law to things dat are constitutional. I will like to see u ask these commentators there concrete and constitutional reasons for there abusive words and hatred as regards Amusa's stand.

Oh should not Have dignified him further. Some things are very clear, As clear as day .
Here are people who put up questions from nowhere just to c if they can drag you further below and make a fool of you or buttress a point that Never was
I challenge any one who sees wearing of hijab as not our right or contravention laws to please organize a public discussion or debate open to muric and all Muslims then we should respond for real till then, this is a was the of time to me

bigfish3k:
u are supposed to a be a Yoruba(omoluabi) and not a fanatic

but u have not answered my question of those u think that made the laws

but I told u in my own submissions that those that made the laws are drawn from that profession irrespective of religion

so why are now blowing hot
u are a suspect on extremism which leads to terrorism

i and told u there is no law prohibiting the use of hijab and if there is the onus is on u to site the law for us to see.

I know, like alws, u will beat about the bush and turn around in circles and at the end u will not be able to site any law.

Siralgebra04:
Dear Sir
I think this is another topic entirely which will suitably b answered and treated in a new trend. I won't like us to deviate from d present topic becos we are already bending to another topic.

I know you won't answer, that's why I've even given you options to your answer, it's a polar question.

NOETHNICITY:
i and told u there is no law prohibiting the use of hijab and if there is the onus is on u to site the law for us to see.

I know, like alws, u will beat about the bush and turn around in circles and at the end u will not be able to site any law.

u only asked me "who set the non hijab wearing law" and I told u that people of the law profession came together irrespective of religion to set a standard dress code for themselves without regard to any particular religion. and u know that hijab is ur religious wear.
if hijab is allowed do u also subscribe that others should wear their own religious wears? like Christians been allowed to wear their choristers gown and turtle neck and turtle hand wears for deeper life brethren and white clothings for celestial and cherubim worshipers while traditionalist should come with their cowries laden clothes and beads. if bc of religious freedom all these are allowed in the law profession. how will the place look like.
u people are just too troublesome.
read Genesis 16 verse 12 u will see that the bible already knows about ur wild nature as its happening today all over the world. so am not surprised
if u are not troublesome, how again can u prove that u are the children of ishmael

NOETHNICITY:
Why do xhristian fanatics like persecuting muslims?
Yet dey claim to love all
Hypocrites.
If Nigeria is partitioned muslims in the south will suffer unbelievable persecution in the hands of these hating bigoted christian extremists

See dis mumu o! Abeg wats the difference btw a muslim fanatic and a christian fanatic? I've never seen a christian fanatic figth for God, or should I say "kill for God". Mumu muslims and their babaric lifestyle.
Anyways, Jesus loves u best

ifeoluwasegun:
I know you won't answer, that's why I've even given you options to your answer, it's a polar question.

It's a good question but it is not in line with d issue on ground. Wat do u want to derive from going out of context? Don't b an hypocrite.

bigfish3k:
u only asked me "who set the non hijab wearing law" and I told u that people of the law profession came together irrespective of religion to set a standard dress code for themselves without regard to any particular religion. and u know that hijab is ur religious wear.
if hijab is allowed do u also subscribe that others should wear their own religious wears? like Christians been allowed to wear their choristers gown and turtle neck and turtle hand wears for deeper life brethren and white clothings for celestial and cherubim worshipers while traditionalist should come with their cowries laden clothes and beads. if bc of religious freedom all these are allowed in the law profession. how will the place look like.
u people are just too troublesome.
read Genesis 16 verse 12 u will see that the bible already knows about ur wild nature as its happening today all over the world. so am not surprised
if u are not troublesome, how again can u prove that u are the children of ishmael

I shake my head. U are just using brain or let me say level of understanding to give baseless opinions. U talked abt d garments of d choristers and other factions like Cherubim. All d garments u mentioned are only worn to church or denominational events. Hijab is an islamic head-dress dat is meant to be put on by Muslim females everywhere as ordered by Almighty Allah in d holy Quran, meanwhile d holy prophet also taught our ladies to always put on hijab while going out or when in d midst of pple who are not ur parents and siblings.

Putting on hijab is written boldly in d holy Quran. Where in d Bible are christians commanded to wear chorister gowns, white garment or any other self acclaimed garments? Bible did not teach a specific mode of dressings. So stop exerting unneccessary hatred on d use of hijab which God ordered females to put on.

#Algebra

Siralgebra04:
It's a good question but it is not in line with d issue on ground. Wat do u want to derive from going out of context? Don't b an hypocrite.

This question may not directly be related to the thread, however it's an eye opener on the subject matter.
It's just a little deviant out of the thread context.
An answer to that would definitely birth another question.
Thanks in anticipation.

Siralgebra04:
We are gradually going out of d original topic. The topic is "Law school codes of conduct vs National Constitution".

I will llke to answer your question in a new trend.

Thanks.

^^^^

No Sir.

We are not 'gradually going out of the original topic'. At the heart of what you term 'law school codes of conduct vs national constitution' is the primacy of federal law in this republic. That same issue of primacy of federal law is also the crux of the matter in the issue I brought up - i.e. the adoption of religious law by state legislatures in Nigeria. The core issues are exactly the same.

Firdaus and her supporters cannot claim her rights are being abridged by the Nigerian Law School and at the same time support (covertly or overtly) the abridgement of the rights of other Nigerians.

It doesn't work that way.

Siralgebra04:
I shake my head. U are just using brain or let me say level of understanding to give baseless opinions. U talked abt d garments of d choristers and other factions like Cherubim. All d garments u mentioned are only worn to church or denominational events. Hijab is an islamic head-dress dat is meant to be put on by Muslim females everywhere as ordered by Almighty Allah in d holy Quran, meanwhile d holy prophet also taught our ladies to always put on hijab while going out or when in d midst of pple who are not ur parents and siblings.

Putting on hijab is written boldly in d holy Quran. Where in d Bible are christians commanded to wear chorister gowns, white garment or any other self acclaimed garments? Bible did not teach a specific mode of dressings. So stop exerting unneccessary hatred on d use of hijab which God ordered females to put on.

#Algebra

if its a commandment in the holy quran for all occasions even though it doesn't befit that occasion; then there are some professions that u need to avoid for ur women. I also understand that women are not allowed to be judges and lawyers in the holy quran; why do u now choose to violate that and obey only hijab wearing, if not for hypocricy. instead of ur women to be grateful to the liberal law that has liberated them, they are coming to dictate the mode of dressing for a secular and liberal law that has given them opportunity to flourish
btw, the bible commanded deeper life members to tie head scarf always, it commanded celestial and cherubim not to put on shoes

bigfish3k:
u only asked me "who set the non hijab wearing law" and I told u that people of the law profession came together irrespective of religion to set a standard dress code for themselves without regard to any particular religion. and u know that hijab is ur religious wear.
if hijab is allowed do u also subscribe that others should wear their own religious wears? like Christians been allowed to wear their choristers gown and turtle neck and turtle hand wears for deeper life brethren and white clothings for celestial and cherubim worshipers while traditionalist should come with their cowries laden clothes and beads. if bc of religious freedom all these are allowed in the law profession. how will the place look like.
u people are just too troublesome.
read Genesis 16 verse 12 u will see that the bible already knows about ur wild nature as its happening today all over the world. so am not surprised
if u are not troublesome, how again can u prove that u are the children of ishmael

i refuse to read the trash u typed up there until u reference the law that prohibits yhe use of hijab

bigfish3k:
if its a commandment in the holy quran for all occasions even though it doesn't befit that occasion; then there are some professions that u need to avoid for ur women. I also understand that women are not allowed to be judges and lawyers in the holy quran; why do u now choose to violate that and obey only hijab wearing, if not for hypocricy. instead of ur women to be grateful to the liberal law that has liberated them, they are coming to dictate the mode of dressing for a secular and liberal law that has given them opportunity to flourish
btw, the bible commanded deeper life members to tie head scarf always, it commanded celestial and cherubim not to put on shoes

My brother, i laugh u. U just enjoy bringing claims dat are very untrue to denfend ur baseless opinion. Who told u Quran doesn't support being a Lawyer? Now let me carefully educate u so dat u can educate others who av similar mentality.


Being a Lawyer in court of law is acting on behalf of another in cases of dispute, but it depends on the type of dispute:

1. If the case is well founded and the representative is basing his case on facts that he knows, and there is no perjury, lying or trickery involved, and he is representing the person in order to present his proof and evidence as to the truth of his claim or to defend him, there is nothing wrong with that.

2. But if the dispute involves some false claim or speaking on behalf of someone who is in the wrong, then this is not permissible. Allaah said to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) (interpretation of the meaning): “so be not a pleader for the treacherous” [Quran 4:105]. We all know that if the case is a just one and he does not use any kind of lying or perjury, then there is nothing wrong with that, especially if the person is weak and cannot defend himself or establish his claim to what is his right. Appointing someone who is stronger than him to represent him is permitted in sharee’ah.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “But if the debtor is of poor understanding, or weak, or is unable to dictate for himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice” [al-Baqarah 2:282].

Acting on behalf of a weak person in order to ensure that he gets what is rightfully his or to ward off wrongdoing from him is a good thing. But if it is other than that, i.e., helping a person who is in the wrong or defending wrongdoing or using false evidence, and the deputy or representative knows that the case is basically wrong, such as representing a person with regard to something haraam such as bribery, then it is not permissible. It is not permissible for a Muslim to act as a deputy or representative with regard to falsehood or to act as a lawyer in transactions that involve bribery/corruption because then he is helping in the consumption of bribery and so the curse applies to him.

I tink i av communicated something? Pls change ur mentality. Islam is a very simple religion, we don't accept invention of new ideas except wat Allah teaches us.

#Algebra

bigfish3k:
if its a commandment in the holy quran for all occasions even though it doesn't befit that occasion; then there are some professions that u need to avoid for ur women. I also understand that women are not allowed to be judges and lawyers in the holy quran; why do u now choose to violate that and obey only hijab wearing, if not for hypocricy. instead of ur women to be grateful to the liberal law that has liberated them, they are coming to dictate the mode of dressing for a secular and liberal law that has given them opportunity to flourish
btw, the bible commanded deeper life members to tie head scarf always, it commanded celestial and cherubim not to put on shoes

U also said something very funny, maybe u didn't proofread before u uploaded it.

You said "the bible commanded deeper life members to tie head scarf always, it commanded celestial and cherubim not to put on shoes". Can u pls quote where d bible commanded d different factions of christians to put on specific garment? U said bible specially prescribes white garment for d celestial xtians and to also walk bearfooted. Lols, am sure u don't mean all dis funny stuff.

And if paradventure bible specially orders d Deeper life faction of xtians to tie their scarf always , is dat not in line with d right Amasa is claiming? And am very sure a holy book should not prescribe defferent modes of dressing for different congregation of Xtians.

Stop hypocrisy... Stop ur hatred for hijab.... Shun indecent dressings and embrace hijab.

#Algebra

bigfish3k:
if its a commandment in the holy quran for all occasions even though it doesn't befit that occasion; then there are some professions that u need to avoid for ur women. I also understand that women are not allowed to be judges and lawyers in the holy quran; why do u now choose to violate that and obey only hijab wearing, if not for hypocricy. instead of ur women to be grateful to the liberal law that has liberated them, they are coming to dictate the mode of dressing for a secular and liberal law that has given them opportunity to flourish
btw, the bible commanded deeper life members to tie head scarf always, it commanded celestial and cherubim not to put on shoes

According to a statement, Islam says, and I quote:

“No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of their affairs.”

I think this answers a point why women should not be permitted at all, because they'll surely abuse it like Firdaus.

Attention: SirAlgebra04

theapeman:
now the religion of peace will that killing because of this

where did he mention killing(s) in his write-up ?. I would not say that religion of yours breeds intolerant ,but rather say persons like you cause religion feud and create deep enmity among the two religions .

Gkemz:
The legal body should maintain a professional decorum and discipline any female lawyer who goes against the legalized manner of conduct. If Muslims are allowed to wear hijab, then christians should allowed to tire scalp and heathens allowed to be adorned with fetish attires.

My dear fellow human being, Tiri gbosa for you...
If Muslims are allowed to wear religious attires to the court, then Ogun and Amadioha worshippers should be allowed to wear theirs too.

Dumba** MURIC