₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
Oh wow, now your attack on the man focused on his being a muslim is not serious? Come on now . . . we weren't born yesterday and we both know where this is coming from.

Actually, the past is the reason why we are where we are today. You insinuations of this man FROM HIS PAST are wrong -- since he only professed his belief to this date, like everyother muslim has so far. But the ones who actually took it on themselves to IMPOSE that belief on others, you seem not worried about. Might we conclude that to be interesting!!!

BULL!!! Most muslims subscribe to sharia -- are you going to outlaw islam as a result? Muslims didn't start subscribing to this 12 years ago, or even right when Buhari served as military dictator in Nigeria. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. I don't understand why that suddenly feel you need to change Nigeria and wail about Sharia because a man like Buhari wants to be president.

Cut the bull! . . . If you want to preach to anyone, start by preaching to your own self. Why have you not OPENED your mouth to your legislators about this? What have you done to awaken the masses to the ills of Sharia?? If you find you are in the minority on this, what are you going to do? IMPOSE YOUR WILL ON OTHERS?

Give it a break!!! Bigotry is wrong. . . . stop fishing for excuses.

Sharap! how can you speak for most muslims, by the way. No one is saying that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religion, but that you should not mix govt. with religion. So according to you, most Muslims in the United States believe in Sharia, and that the only way Muslims to practice Islam is to have the establishment of a Sharia court.

And by the way, I have written several of our legislators about the idiocy in having a government establish a religion, i.e., allowing for the creation of Sharia courts by the Constitution. Only a retarded country like Nigeria with retarded legislators will create a Constitution that does not treat everyone equal. Muslims are treated one way, while others are treated differently.

Kobojunkie:
You should read and think before you type!!! First off . . . I didn't say he needed to be the one to institute sharia. You claimed the Man a MUJAHADEENS FIGHTERS simply because, according to you, he is a proponebt of Sharia. Please again, use your head! most evey muslim out there, even many of the African american's here turned muslims are 'proponents' of sharia. Unless you are going to say all Muslims are mujahadeens, I suggest you try another way to wiggle out of and around this one.

Again, unless you are going to state that ALL MUSLIMS are MUJAHADEENS FIGHTERS since most ALL MUSLIMS subscribe to Sharia ideals, then I suggest you start learning to use your heard, as you advice others to. Again, you should take your own advice . . . use your head and not your arse when reasoning!!! That you want a separation of religion from government is on the side. You didn't get that in the past 12 years and you feel rather than attacking those who gave us what we have today, it is more rational you attack the one person who did not, with bigotted rubbish ?? ROFLMAO!!

Wait a second here . . . . You yourself have never made much effort or appealed to your legislators to do something on this  . .  matter of fact, Nigerians have never really done much to question the very legislators they elected to appeal the inclusion. The Past Christian Presidents never even bothered themselves with the inclusion of sharia in our constitution. The present Government has not even called on to remove Sharia from the constitution --- matter of fact, there is no indication to show that those of us wanting Sharia out of the constitution are even in the majority--- but you are quick to condemn the man for this??


ROFLMAO!!!

Again start thinking with your head and not your arse . . .take your own advice!

. You must check your senses if you thought my statement about calling him a Mujahadeed fighter was serious. That was just puffery. Anyway, what happened in the past does not address my question about his belief, or that any of the other candidate, about whether Sharia should be part of the Constitution.

And if, according to you, most Muslims subscribe to Sharia ideals, are you now arguing that Nigeria should be made into a Sharia country like Saudi, Iran, etc. Do you know how there are no freedoms in those countries? I am no questioning any body's belief, but I sure hate to mix religion and govt. together.

Kobojunkie:
Et tu?  

Dude, he did not institutionalize Sharia  . . .  PDP did. He did not serve as Governor of a Sharia State and not even raise objection to Sharia . . . Namadi Sambo did. Buhari did not served side by side a man who helped institutionalize Sharia --- Jonathan did. If anyone is linked to Sharia directly or indirectly, it is the PDP gang that know of the atrocities that have been committed against the common man and done nothing about it in the past 12 years of their institutionalizing Sharia, and governing Nigeria.

If anything, one can safely say terrorists have probably been at home in the North, the past 12 years. We have already seen groups like Boko haram come out from there in the same period(not that I think them worse than MEND in the south). We have seen the division between the North and south widen over the last 12 years. Let's stop acting the fool in this  . . . the current Government is the problem!!

Please go back to using your head dude. This bigoted side of yours is creeping folks out!

Read and think before you type. I never said Buhari instituted Sharia, but that he is a proponent of Sharia. Let's judge each candidate by what he stands for. The issue is not whether PDP or Buhari instituted Sharia, but that whether each individual candidate supports Sharia law or not.
If you don't understand that let me put it in more elementary English: whether if Buhari or GEJ had the power to eliminate Sharia law from the Constitution, would he do it?

Do you know the meaning of "proponent?" Please reason with your head, not your yansh! I want a separation of religion from government. So even if Buhari did not put Sharia law in the Constitution, would he appeal to legislators to remove it from the Constitution. And presumably a president would not appeal to remove from the Constitution something that which he espouses. Get it?

Buhari is sounding like a typical Mujahadeen fighter. Why will anyone vote for Buhari, who is a proponent of Sharia law? Sharia law promotes Islamic education at the expense of "western" education. I would not be surprised if Osama Bin Laden is sponsoring Buhari.

Kobojunkie:
Please do not think like one with a gap in his reasoning. I live in Chicago -- we want to fix a lot of things in our city-- we cannot. Why? Because we are debt and we need to fix our serious debt issues before we start borrowing to develop the place as we would like to have have planned for so long to.

The west is today recovering still from the global crises. . .  States are still reeling from the effects of the  recession. Many cities are cutting back big time. This is not a good time for mega projects.

We need to use our heads a bit more here. Think to the recession of the early 80's that lasted till long into the late 80's in most of Africa. I don't think any person who has a clear idea of what the country was like, back then, would even suggest that borrowing such an enormous amount, would have been good sense for us.

Think iceland, greece, ireland  . . . yes, we were near collapse and the IMF was in fact begging us to take a loan to restructure during the period we are speaking of here.

The presence of a recession is no excuse to stop all projects; you may prioritize and stop the less important ones. When the benefits of a project substantially outweigh the burdens associated with the project, i.e., a mega railway in Lagos, then it shows prudence when a leader effectuates said project, even when the economy is in a recession. The benefits that the proposed railway would have conferred on Lagos, a densely populated city and the commercial nerve-center of Nigeria, would have outweighed any risks. Furthermore, the project, if managed properly, would have most likely enough generated sufficient revenue to pay off the debt.

I don't understand how anyone can support this illiterate Sharia dictator who lacks the intellect to lead Nigeria to her rightful place.

ibkn:
i was there live ooh,  nice crowd. i couldnt take pics becuase my bb was stolen,  chei if na change be dis?

BB took your BB. lol

gidson12:
this is just gbagbo being purnished here by france because he refused to play a slave to them, this is mordern colonialism at play here, for those of you heapin insults on gbagbo, go and make an in-dept sturdy of the situation in ivory coast before u make your comment,

why don't you give us a synopsis of your own in-depth study, and your own comment about the situation?

All these old, African leaders annoy me. Why can't they do things peacefully? Why do innocent people have to die just because a dictator refuses to give up power after his time has expired?

I am sure both the Boko Haram fighters and Al Qaeda have endorsed the BB campaign

How can our diversity be the source of our strength when we can't even agree to all abide by one set of laws? In one part of the country customary courts apply customary law, in another part sharia courts apply sharia law, each of which is radically different from the other. When people from one region of the country travel to another region they are denied the same freedoms that abound in the region from which they came. When people from one part of the country put religion ahead of national interests, regardless of whether it stymies national growth and inhibits the creation and communication of ideas, how can we grow together as a country? How can we have strength when our Constitution establishes and promotes one religion over the other religions in the country. What happened to equal protection for everyone? Why can't everyone's religion be treated the same? Why can't the government not "establish" and support one religion over another, and not mix government affairs with religion? I am cautiously optimistic for our country, but at the same time I am realistic.

I read in Tribune that the Univ of Ibadan testing center was chaotic and that the test started late. Specifically, the exam started as late as 4:30 pm and lasted till late in the evening, during which time NEPA unfortunately took light. This prompted the examinees to use torchlights and their cellphones to illuminate their papers so as to complete the exam.

This is sad.

http://www.tribune.com.ng/sun/index.php/news/3505-stampede-at-nnpc-recruitment-test-applicants-complete-test-with-torch-light

9ijaMan:
I would want to believe that you are more intelligent than what you've typed above. I asked you to read through Sharia law documents and come up with the aspects you think will impede freedom and the best you have been able to do so far is to quote BBC, CNN and just about everything western. You cannot castigate a faith without understanding what it actually stands for. Abeg bring direct quotations from a proper Sharia law document then you'll be able to better argue your point. Would you accept publications from the middle east as evidence of the evils in the western system of governance?
To argue against any issue, your best bet will be to use the information sourced from the same faith rather than quoting western media, which have predetermined mindset about Sharia.

Do you deny the truthfulness of what I said or you just have a problem because I quoted a Western source? I witnessed everything that happened, so don't act like anyone here is a fool. If you want to hold a truthful, intelligent discussion then have one. The links were just the implications of how it affects our freedoms. If you said the stories are untruthful, then it is another issue.

All the things I quoted are part of Sharia law; even Muslims do not deny it. If you know nothing about Sharia law, maybe you are the one who needs to educate yourself and learn about Sharia law. If you tell me what I quoted is wrong, then we can have a discussion. You need to read and educate yourself. So if you know nothing about Sharia law then don't hold a discussion.

9ijaMan:
@PrinceK12,
I'm just wondering what part of Sharia that you may have come across makes you feel it does not encourage freedom? Have you made any effort in whatever form to read through the norms of Shari law? From your posts so far, I'm certain you have little or no knowledge about the issue you have consistently tried to argue against. I'll implore you to make an effort to read about the law and then come back to discuss the areas you disagree with.

1) Women do not have the freedom to open their faces and their bodies; they are forced to do it according to Sharia law.


2) You do not have the freedom to hold a discussion that some may "deem" offensive to Sharia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8584707.stm
3) Women do not have the freedom to marry nonmuslims; men, on the other hand, can marry non muslims

4) you do not have the freedom to drink alcohol -- Kano has a statewide ban on the consumption of alcohol. there have been numerous reports of Hisbah (Sharia police in Kano) attacking and killing drivers of trucks transporting alcohol in Kano.

5) you do not have the freedom to sing any secular music or hold an event offensive to Sharia. --remember when Sharia proponents chased the Miss World contest out of Nigeria because, according to them, women walking in bathing suits offends Sharia.


7) women do not have the freedom to have sex outside of wedlock; if they do so, they are punishable by death. Many many times are not even allowed to drive; they cannot do things without their husbands' approval; they are pretty much slaves to the men without rights.

there is really no freedom of the press under Sharia. In 2002, a reporter published an  article that the Sharia people of Zamfara state deemed offensive to prophet Muhammed and they issued a fatwa, urging all Muslims to kill the reporter.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-27/world/nigeria.fatwa_1_kaduna-nigerian-court-miss-world-pageant?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/gender.islam

9) there is no freedom to give yourself a meaningful defense in a trial. a nonmuslim cannot be called to testify in a trial against a muslim.

10) in a trial, the testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man. What barbaric reasoning.

Bottom line is that it is clear that principles of Sharia contradicts the principles of a free society the Nigerian Constitution is trying to embrace. If the above reasons are not enough to make you realize that, then I don't know what will. The principles of Sharia clearly contradict the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Nigerian Constitution,

Yusufi:
@Princek12

The Constitution of every Country in the world is largely derived from the norms and customs of the respective society it is intended to serve. No Constitution was drafted out of mere imagination or nothing.  NORMS AND CUSTOMS DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTION and not the Other way. I suggest you update yourself with respect to the basics of Constitutional Law.

I agree with you 100%, that norms and customs of that country determine the Constitution. So the question is whose norms and  customs should we allow to determine our Constitution? An that every Constitution has a basic principle, and should not contradict itself. If you stand for freedom, then make a Constitution that supports freedom. It is a recipe for chaos to have a constitution that treats like citizens differently. If the norms and customs of Northerners is to have their hands cut off for stealing a cow or to restrict the freedom of women then maybe Nigeria should separate and they should make their own constitution. But it is irrational to have a Nigerian Constitution that contradicts itself; it promotes freedom and allows Sharia law that restricts the same freedom it promotes. How do you reconcile that?

so whose norms and customs is the Nigerian constitution designed to serve? And why have a constitution that contradicts itself? And why does the Constitution empower the State to establish an Islamic state within a country, which contradicts the customary law of the land? And does this Sharia Court's ruling supplant the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nigeria? How are Christians supposed to be treated in a Sharia state like Kano, and how will my fundamental constitutional right be protected  in a Sharia state like Kano?

Why does the Nigerian Constitution provides for one thing, and why does that same Constitution provide for the establishment of Sharia laws that same Constitution? Why do you  have a system that supports two sets of laws that contradict each other.

You guys are forgetting that also recently many Nollywood actors could not even shoot their movie in a Sharia state in the North. The country is phucked up, mehn!

Yusufi:
@Princek12

The Constitution of every Country in the world is largely derived from the norms and customs of the respective society it is intended to serve. No Constitution was drafted out of mere imagination or nothing.  NORMS AND CUSTOMS DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTION and not the Other way. I suggest you update yourself with respect to the basics of Constitutional Law.

I agree with you 100%, that norms and customs of that country determine the Constitution. So the question is whose norms and  customs should we allow to determine our Constitution? An that every Constitution has a basic principle, and should not contradict itself. If you stand for freedom, then make a Constitution that supports freedom. It is a recipe for chaos to have a constitution that treats like citizens differently. If the norms and customs of Northerners is to have their hands cut off for stealing a cow or to restrict the freedom of women then maybe Nigeria should separate and they should make their own constitution. But it is irrational to have a Nigerian Constitution that contradicts itself, it promotes freedom and allows Sharia law that restricts the same freedom it promotes. How do you reconcile that?

so whose norms and customs is the Nigerian constitution designed to serve? And why have a constitution that contradicts itself? And why does the Constitution empower the State to establish an Islamic state within a country, which contradicts the customary law of the land? And does this Sharia Court's ruling supplant the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nigeria? How are Christians supposed to be treated in a Sharia state like Kano, and how will my fundamental constitutional right be protected  in a Sharia state like Kano?

Why does the Nigerian Constitution provides for one thing, and why does that same Constitution provide for the establishment of Sharia laws that same Constitution? Why do you  have a system that supports two sets of laws that contradict each other.

You guys are forgetting that also recently many Nollywood actors could not even shoot their movie in a Sharia state in the North. The country is phucked up, mehn!

heilige:
To those saying Buhari will introduce SHARIA LAW.

I have this for you. 12years under PDPRULE without SHARIA can never, i repeat CAN NEVER BE BETTER THAN 4 years of BUHARI LEADERSHIP.
PDP's 12years of misrule failed when compared with BUHARI's military rule.

We BUHARI FANS prefer a BUHARI SHARIA to a GEJ PDP

                              [size=18pt]VOTE BUHARI BAKARI FOR PRESIDENT 2011[/size]

Sharia already exists in Nigeria, and 12 or 13 states (all Northern states) have adopted it. The Nigerian Constitution allows Sharia law, so Buhari will not be the one to introduce it. People are just curious as to his views about Sharia, and whether he wants Sharia law to be the law of the land, or whether he wants to make Nigeria an Islamic country like Iran or Saudi. Right now, Sharia law is optional, and States can adopt it if they choose to.

Yusufi:
Even within the context of man-made constitution, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Ask the legal practitioners. They know best. What I find unacceptable is for the rights and freedom of others to be denied for fear of others loosing their freedom. That is absurd and the highest point of human rights abuse.

I never said there is such thing as absolute freedom. For example, you do not have the freedom to take another person's life without justification. But there is such thing as basic freedom, such as the right to speak or criticize a belief and speak your thoughts and the freedom to choose whether to cover or open your face. Sharia law forces women to do many things. There is no freedom for women under Sharia law. A sharia law banned a twitter debate about Sharia punishment. A society that promotes the exchange of ideas cannot do well under Sharia law. My main point, nonetheless, is that our Constitution promotes exchange of ideas and, in the same breath, allows for the establishment of Sharia law in some States. As usual, in Nigeria, people do not think things through, because the same Nigerian Constitution that is allowing freedom of ideas is also allowing Sharia law that cherry picks  and arguably against the freedom of ideas. Hence you have contradiction and chaos, which is why Nigeria is messed up. Nigeria has to choose whether she wants to be like Iran or Saudi or a country that is progressive and encourages freedom like the U.S. We have to live by one idea.

So if, for example, the Nigerian Constitution allows you to hold a debate about amputation, and a Sharia Court in Kano orders that you not to hold that debate about amputation, which law prevails? Common sense will suggest that the Constitution should prevail since that Sharia order infringes on a fundamental right afforded by the Constitution, so why even allow the Sharia law that offends the Constitution in the first place? And even worse why does the same Constitution expressly allow it.
The Nigerian Constitution should have severed every part of the Sharia law that infringes on a Constitutional guarantee or included a provisio that forbids any part of the Sharia law contradicting the same Constitution, which will reduce Sharia law to our regular common law and there would be no need for it. But no, the North is doing its thing, and other parts of the country are doing their thing; So you get the gist why Nigeria is a phucked up country. It will be the equivalent of the U.S. Constitution, which the Nigerian Constitution was modeled after, adopting Sharia law. Funny, right? If Nigeria wanted to be a Sharia country they should have modeled their Constitution after Iran or Saudi Arabia's constitution.

The legal effect of Nigeria's Constitution is that it somewhat allows two Constitutions in one, primarily a free Constitution modeled after that of the United States, and the right for States to adopt a Sharia system like Iran, whose principles contradict the principles of the free Constitution. I know it sounds like a dumb move, right! That is Nigeria for you, my brothers and my sisters. Thirteen states, I believe have adopted Sharia law.

Moreover, the freedom of religion is guaranteed to individuals, not to states, and any civilized society knows that there should be an anti-establishment clause that prohibits the State from establishing any religion. That is the principle of separation of religion from the state. Imagine if every state wanted to create its own religious court, which will be a recipe for anarchy. But as usual, the drafters of the Constitution are probably dumb folks who put religious interests ahead of national interests, and have refused to separate government from religion. The establishment of a Sharia court should be unconstitutional.

9ijaMan:
If you are claiming to be an advocate of freedom, how come you are against the majority of those states who out of their free will and the freedom of expression have decided to live under a sharia law? I hope you would not be describing freedom from your own point of view only. It is the same freedom you want that those living under Sharia law are exploiting.

I acknowledge your concern about how proponents of Sharia should be given their "freedom" to practice Sharia law, but as a practical matter, a society that wants freedom should not support Sharia law. Proponents of Sharia law, especially those in the West, always want to claim that denying them the ability to practice Sharia infringes on their freedom, but the doctrines of Sharia itself does not espouse freedom. Sharia and freedom is like oil and water; it cannot coexist. And their teachings often offend the notions of freedom found in the same Constitution.

1) You do not have the freedom to drink alcohol under Sharia law.
2) Women have lesser rights under Sharia law than men. Women are not allowed to marry nonmuslims, while men can marry nonmuslims.  Women must cover their bodies and faces like masquerades. Such forcing infringes women's right to choose whether they should cover their faces or not. In short Sharia espouses male supremacy.
3) Under Sharia law, any form of music or teachings that is deemed offensive to Islam is banned. You have no freedom to criticize Islamic religion or Sharia. Remember when Sharia proponents caused the Miss World competition to be moved away from Nigeria.

Nigerian constitution guarantees the freedom to speak and express your ideas, but recently, a Sharia court in Nigeria issued an order permanently forbidding a group from holding a twitter debate about whether amputation is a good from of punishment. That ruling is offensive to freedom and contradicts Nigeria's constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. I can go on and on, but you get the gist why a society that is encouraging freedom cannot allow Sharia law. Just take a look at the other countries that practice Sharia law and tell me whether and see how their freedom is severely restrained.

Kobojunkie:
a) When he served as Governor of Katsina, he did not institute Sharia

b) When he served as President, he again did not institute Sharia


Sharia we have today was made possible by a Christian President, and allowed to continue even under another Christian President. I am not certain why Buhari needs to be linked to the sharia issue when it is obvious, he is not the one who made it a part of our constitution. The current leadership is among those that did.

I am not saying he instituted it; I said whether he is an advocate of Sharia. You don't have to institute Sharia to be an advocate of Sharia. Katsina is one of the states that has Sharia courts, and I am still appalled that a Nigerian Constitution that supposedly espouses freedom expressly empowers States to create Sharia courts as they deem fit. Sharia as we all know it is antithetical to freedom. I am just calling a spade a spade.

is Buhari an advocate of Sharia as law of the land?

If Amodu were coach, he would have secured a 1-0 victory and will be happy about it. A win is not a win; and Sia one getting a 4-0 victory against a weaker side shows that he is not a coach who is just going to settle for a victory, but will be ready to trammel the opponent when possible. If 10-0 is possible, Sia One go for it. Be it Brazil or Argentina, Sia One is ready.

God bless Nigeria; God bless the Super Eagles; God bless Sia One. Eko oni baje oooo.

mojounited:
No, it wasn't; just a tap in. .If we played against a top team with great defenders, that ball would have been long cleared outta defense. .

we can play with any team in the world. we now have a good coach.

gadgetdeal:
http://suncastv.ae/watch-now/nta-live-streaming   this link works for me in the united states

is it free. im wan charge me

12large1:
check this out everybody : www.suncastv.com, click watch online,click on use windows media or use silverlight (mac)depending on which one u use then click on Nigerian channels, click on Aitv Live, click on African Television Test Stream
Running time: 00:00:00 , then click on Watch now. Then enjoy the football match by 7pm nigeria time.

i hope this is live

i hope so too

so the "African giant" is playing and no links to watch their game? Nna na wa ooo!

any reliable links?