₦airaland Forum

TroGunn: You are right in saying people don't want to isolate the BH followers. You are wrong in blaming SS and MASSOB for that. The blame for harbouring BH lands squarely at the feet of the Sokoto Caliphate and other Muslim leaders in the North. These were the same ones who rose against similar groups in the past, according to u. SS and MASSOB cannot practically isolate BH since BH is, at this time, non-existent in their region. No point in dragging the SS and SE into this.

One thing I have noticed with most muslim is their willingness to deny glaring facts but rather dwell on speculative BS that distracts from the main issues. Nobody is saying every northern muslim is a BokoHaram apologist but it is a known fact that BokoHarm has sympathizers both amongst political leaders and religious leaders. They wont be so successful if they are not getting both subtle moral and financial support from these apologists.
The OP even buttress my point when he made mention of the muslim leader that was killed earlier on for being the lone voice of dissent. I am presently in Sokoto, and sometimes, I wonder how Sokoto which arguably has like 90% muslims with a sultan that is the supreme leader has not witnessed any terrorist attack. Obviously, it is not as a result of superior security put in place neither does it have to with the respect the BH boys have for the sultan like some people in sokoto argue atimes. The only explanation to such will be because the leadership especially the sultan has not get in their way or condemn them for their acts, they have probably misconstrued their reticence as support and saw no need to attack their states.
No matter how anyone tries to put it, the BokoHarma problem is multi-faceted, it has both religious and poltical dimensions that we must all look at.

BlueMurder: A big thank you to all those who have taken out time to read the long post and offer suggestions. It is my hope that those who are in a position to do something about this ugly situation are actually viewing this thread and putting the suggestions to work.

I must say that we Muslims are very conservative. Thus we find it very difficult to criticise our leaders and call them to order. However, in dangerous situations like these, when Islam is being buffeted left, right and centre, i make bold to say that our leaders(both political and spiritual) have failed us. Infact, there seems to be a huge disconnect between them and us. Our political leaders have deviated from the true teachings of Islam. They now engage in, and promote rigging, thuggery, mindless looting, as well as deliberate suppression of human capacity and economic development. The result of these vices is the massive poverty, unemployment, underdevelopment and the attendant insecurity we now have in the north. While our political leaders are in an unholy race to hug the devil, most of our spiritual leaders have refused to call them to order due to greed and the love for filthy lucre.

We must start asking serious questions of our leaders. The rot they have been superintending over has now become a cancer. The Sultan of Sokoto, who is the spiritual leader of Muslims in Nigeria, must now dump his diplomatic toga, roll up his sleeves and start putting these people on their toes. He must work with the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs(SCIA), Jama'atul Bid'ah wa Iqamatus Sunnah(JIBWIS), the Tijjaniya Movement, and sundry other Islamic bodies, to isolate these terrorists and whoever they may be working for. They must do it now or be prepared to face the wrath of Allah for being complacent while deviants hide under the veil of Islam to unleash mayhem.

in order to find solution it is important that the origins of the BokoHaram sect is discussed for people to understand what is today known aa BokoHaram. I understand how much bad publicity the sect is giving to islam but the fact still remains that their ideology is rooted from the islamic holybooks perhaps misinterpreted though. Where I have problem with many a muslim is when they engage in outright denial of the obvious, they try so hard to claim that they have no link with the religion, they want to so quickly wish it away as a political group hiding behind their religion to gain relevance.
BokoHaram started in Borno state in 2002 with the full knowledge of the then state government, it was even alleged that one of the top financiers then was a commissioner for islamic affairs in his government. Boko Haram was founded as an indigenous Salafist group, turning itself into a Salafist Jihadist group in 2009. From the little I have read about the Salafist group, it is a sunni muslim group with wahhabist ideology. This brings us to the question of how many ideologies do we have in islam? Lagoshia was doing a good job educating us on these different ideologies and why majority of the muslim faithfuls consider thier ideology inimical until the all-knowing MacLatunji who is more interested ignoring the facts that muslims will have to play their own part in solving the problem, instead he is more fixated on whinning about Jonathan. Anyway, I am in the middle of work right now but I shall join this topic soon after I am done, I think it is going to be educative especially to those of us that are not muslims, I like to know the views of my muslim brothers, they have been too silent for long.

maclatunji: ^ I have already told you, if there are radical elements in any sect or group they should be addressed as that but Noooooo, LagosShia has to go on and on like a broken record. So predictable. Now, stick to the topic!

your problem is denial and intolerance to anyone willing to be honest to discuss the violent aspect of the islamic faith. You keep trying to shut anyone that says there are elements of the islamic faith that vaguely talks about faith conversion through the use of force and violence. Do you think it is a conincidence that most of the suicid terrorist act world over have been carried out by muslims whose interpretation of these vague verses inspired their act. Why do you like to pretend it does not exist? If you can't stand intellectual debates that explore aspect of your faith you are not too comfortable to discuss then dont contibute instead trying to shut others down.

Lol...me wey come dey Sokoto nko?
Seriously, this place is not safe but wetin man go do na. There was nothing I did not do to redeploy but for where na, e no work out. I rarely go to my PPA sef, i just kukuma dey siddon house dey press fone..and watch film.lol....abeg make Batch B dem show o...this place boring die, me dey find chic wey i go take hold body o for this place. Their gals here na no go area if u value your life....lol...no bomb blast here so far but that one no mean say person go comef relax o....my own even better na villa dem throway me put....already me no dey try am say i wan go church here....me no wan die yet....the weather nko...hahahaha...extremes that is what one gets here

I agree hundred percent with this writer. Political relevance in this country is usually sought by patronizing this geopolitical sects. However, in the case of BokoHaram, the religious colouration of their ideology makes them dangerous for such purpose as they have so far succeeded in alienating everyone including the northern christians in their midst. Their activities has further exposed the false claims of a monolithic north, just as they emphasized on tribal differnces in the eastern region and divided it into SE/SS, Bokoharam has unwittingly highlighted the tribal and religious difference in the north. Little wonder Buhari could not win majority in many parts of the NC and NE. As it is now, it will be difficult for an Hausa Muslim to rule this country as increasingly the Bokoharam sect that is viewed as javing support from core north politicians is making sure so.

ambrosini593: “We rushed to the scene, assessed the situation, cordoned off the area and alerted the appropriate authorities. That was how the bomb disposal unit of the State Police Command was called in to detonate the bomb”, Anaforom said.

hahahahahha...this report is wack jor...no picture no evidence of anything...lol...by the way, did the DPO say they detonated the bomb...lol...that cracked me up

Boko Haram Will Damage The North Politically, Possibly Disintegrate Nigeria
Posted: June 20, 2012 - 13:08
Malcolm Fabiyi
Columnist: Malcolm Fabiyi
Geopolitics is the social science theory that analyzes the relationships between politics and geographical territories. It provides an understanding of the links between political power and economic, demographic and geographical factors. When predictions are made about what might happen in foreign affairs, or in the political dynamics of nationsat a future time, geopolitics is the primary tool used for such analyses. The suggestion by foreign security agencies that Nigeria could disintegrate by 2015 is based on geopolitical analyses.
Politics in Nigeria is an ethnic and regional affair. In other words, Nigerian politics fits neatly into the geopolitical model. This has always been the case since the first Republic when three regional parties dominated Nigerian politics. Since 1999, a de facto six (6)regional geopolitical structure has defined the political space in Nigeria. Currently, all the major political parties use geopolitical zoning principles to select candidates for elections, and to allocate offices and positions.
In Nigeria’s zero sum political system in which winners-take-all, and patronage flowsfrom the top downwards, the top geopolitical prize is the Presidency.
Geopolitical considerations require that the political actors who represent the political interests of the cleavage centers (the six geopolitical zones) will actively cultivate strategies that assure that they have dominance over the structures of power. The most successful of these strategies - dominant strategies as they are called – will become the major plays that will be used by political cleavage centers as they struggle forpower.
The dominant geopolitical strategy of the 4th republic has been the use of ethnic militias to capture power centrally. That strategy has been remarkably successful. It ensured that a Yoruba President emerged in 1999, and led directly to the emergence of a minority Vice President from the South-South region in 2007.
The June 12 struggle was partly a philosophical debate about the role and nature of democracy in Nigeria, and partly a geopolitical struggle for relevance by the Yoruba.
The response of the Babangida and Abacha juntas to the crisis that followed the annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections underscored the recognition of the geopolitical implications of that conflict. Abiola’s certain victory would have certainly advanced Nigerian democracy, and it would have been a clear geopolitical boon for the Yoruba. To douse the geopolitical urgency ofthe June 12 crisis for the Yoruba, Babangida installed Ernest Shonekan, a Yoruba of the same Egba extraction as Abiola, as head of the Interim Transition Government. When Abacha eased out Shonekan’s transition government a few months later, it was Oladipo Diya, another Yoruba man from Abiola’s Ogun State, that he selected as his deputy.
In time, the philosophical debate about democracy and its place in Nigeria, which was initiated by the June 12 crisis, fizzled outbut its geopolitical essence was retained. The June 12 movement soon came to be seen increasingly as a Yoruba Struggle. The OPC was formed in 1997, as the June 12 struggle progressively devolved to its geopolitical essence. The emergence of groups like Afenifere and the OPC represented the crystallization of the most extreme geopolitical aspects of the June 12 struggle. It was clear that the Yoruba geopolitical struggle would not cease until the egregious wrongs done to the Yoruba bythe annulment of June 12, 1993 were rightedby the emergence of a Yoruba man as the legitimate President of Nigeria. As the 1999 transition to democracy dawned, the threat of secession by the Yoruba, and the emergence of the O’dua People’s Congress (OPC) militia as a paramilitary outfit that could give muscle to those separatist aspirations compelled the Northern elite andthe major political parties to unanimously agree on the exclusive adoption of Yoruba candidates for the Presidency.
It can be argued that without the OPC and the threat that it posed to the unity of the Nigerian nation, Olusegun Obasanjo could never have become President in 1999.
The North’s attempt at taming the geopolitical implications of a Yoruba Presidency was to opt for a “balanced” SouthWesterner, who could be used to rule by proxy and relied upon to facilitate the transfer of power to the north. Obasanjo, a Yoruba man whose handling of the 1979 elections had demonstrated his capacity for acting beyond the confines of tribal and regional geopolitics, was a reasonable choice for the North to settle upon.
Within a few months of Obasanjo’s swearingin, it had become crystal clear that the expectation of the Northern elite that they would rule by proxy through Obasanjo had been a huge miscalculation. Obasanjo’s immediate actions in office emasculated the North politically. The sweep of all military officers that had held political office between 1985 and 1999 disproportionally affected the North since that region had helda dominance of power and privilege in the Nigerian military. Obasanjo’s increasing appointment of Northern minorities and Christians to positions typically reserved for “core Northerners” caused the reemergence of rifts between the so called “core North”, minority Northerners, Christian Northerners and the Middle Belt zone. The notion of a monolithic North was increasingly being exposed as a fallacy.
The North was losing out politically and it needed to stem the tide. The response of theNorthern political elite was swift. Sectarian separatism via the adoption of political sharia, a limited form of secession, was theirtool of choice. In January 2000, Zamfara made the first move towards political Sharia,and by 2002, the twelve (12) Northernmost States in Nigeria had instituted Sharia law in varying degrees. Thousands were killed in the ethnic and sectarian conflicts that ensued. As a geopolitical tool, political sharia worked wonders. Obasanjo’s government took less drastic actions that threatened the North, and the region was ‘carried along’ more by the OBJ regime.
The geopolitical stakes were further raised when the Naaba led, Northern dominated, National Assembly attempted to impeach Obasanjo in 2002/2003 on the pretext of his government’s handling of the onshore-offshore dichotomy issue. What many do notrealize was the role that geopolitics also played in preventing Obasanjo’s impeachment. The National Assembly only dropped its plans to impeach Obasanjo and pave the way for Atiku’s takeover of the Presidency when Afenifere under Pa Abraham Adesanya’s leadership threatened to precipitate a constitutional crisis if Obasanjo was removed from office. The behind the scenes maneuverings that took place during this period are worth recounting.
The geopolitical arrangements that followedthe 1999 elections allocated the Presidency to the South West, the Vice Presidency to theNorth East, the Senate Presidency to the South East and the Speakership of the House of Representatives to the North West. When the first speaker of the House, Salisu Buhari was impeached, his deputy, Chibudom Nwuche was passed over for Ghali Naaba, another Northerner, in accordance with the extant geopolitical compromise. A similar scenario played out in the Senate. When Evans Enwerem was impeached, his deputy Haruna Abubakar was passed over, and the South Eastern Senator Chuba Okadigbo became Senate President. Following Okadigbo’s impeachment, another South Eastern Senator Pius Anyim became Senate President. All of these arrangements were extra-constitutional.
Afenifere’s geopolitical threat was simple: if Obasanjo was impeached, the Yoruba would request a special election, limited only to candidates from the Southwest region, to produce Obasanjo’s replacement – in accordance with the geopolitical compromise of 1999, and in line with the precedents that had been set in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The impeachment plot quickly unraveled when itbecame clear that it could not possibly yield the desired outcome.
By the time of Obasanjo’s departure in 2007, the pendulum of power had swung back to the North. The Traditional geopolitical considerations in Nigeria would have ensured that Yaradua’s deputy would be a person of Igbo extraction. However, between 1999 and 2007, the geopolitical dynamics of Southern Nigeria had been radically altered by the emergence of MEND and other allied South-South militant groups.
The Egbesu emerged as one of several militant youth groups that played key roles during the Ijaw-Itshekiri-Urhobo crisis. The major political actors in the South South region saw the potential that some of these groups offered not just for the harassment and intimidation of opponents, but for enhancing the geopolitical relevance of the South South. Governors like Peter Odili, James Ibori and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha courted, financed and aided these groups. Intime, the militancy of the Egbesu and other South South militant groups began to stray beyond the local politics of the South-South States and were more strategically directed towards geopolitical questions of resource control. The end result was that within the eight years from 1999 to 2007, the disparate groups had fused into MEND, and their activities had resulted in the ascendancy of the South South, and in particular the Ijaw nation, as a major center in Nigerian geopolitics. The Niger Delta crisis was essentially a geopolitically induced conflict, and its resolution required the inclusion of the South South in the center stage of Nigerian politics. Without MEND, Goodluck Jonathan would not have been Yaradua’s Vice President. Without Jonathan’s stint as Yaradua’s deputy and his eventual elevation to the Presidency following Yaradua’s death, he would not be President of Nigeria today.
Boko Haram began life in Borno State in 2002as a religious group that enjoyed the patronage of Governor Ali Modu Sheriff until their parting of ways in 2009. It is on record that Modu Sheriff appointed Alhaji Buju Foi, an influential Boko Haram member and financier as the Borno State Commissioner for Religious Affairs in 2007.
Despite the increasing militancy of the sect in Borno and Yobe States from its establishment in 2002, most Nigerians had never heard of Boko Haram until the events of July 2009 when the Nigerian Security Agencies engaged Boko Haram in a full blown assault in Maiduguri. In that tragic incident the Nigerian State facilitated the extra Judicial killing of hundreds of Boko Haram members. The dead included Muhammad Yusuf, the sect’s leader. The events of July 2009, led to the nationalizationof the Boko Haram conflict.
Much like Egbesu and MEND before it, Boko Haram has evolved to become a major geopolitical tool. The Northern political elite have come to see the value of Boko Haram for driving forward their geopolitical strategies for political relevance. In the sameway that the OPC and MEND paved the way for Obasanjo and Jonathan to win the Presidency, those who seek to make geopolitical hay out of the Boko Haram crisisexcept that it will lead to significant politicalbenefits for the North. The not too subtle message is that Nigeria will be made ungovernable if power and privilege does not devolve back to the North.
The silence of Northern political leaders in condemning the actions of Boko Haram is a clear signal of their tacit endorsement of thesect and its destabilizing actions. Again, this is not surprising. For geopolitical reasons, mainstream Yoruba and Ijaw political leaders did not openly condemn the OPC or MEND either. There are however some significant issues with the use of Boko Haram as a geopolitical tool. Unlike MEND and OPC, Boko Haram’s message is not purelygeopolitical. The sect is first and foremost a religious fundamentalist organization and that fact makes it ineffective as an effective geopolitical tool.
The North has never lacked the ability to present Presidential candidates on the platform of major parties. It has failed to find a way to guarantee that a Northern Presidential candidate emerges on the platform of the PDP, the only party which despite its many faults can make any claims to being a truly national party, and thereforemost likely to produce Nigeria’s President. The Boko Haram crisis is in effect an attemptto influence the politics of the PDP, and through that the political dynamics of the Nigerian nation.
The risk for the North is that the sectarian colorations of Boko Haram will come to frame that region’s geopolitical aspirations. The association of Northern geopolitical aspirations with the random maiming and killing of civilians, the calls for the expulsion of Southerners and Northern Christians is damaging the North politically. Soon, it might make the Presidency of Nigeria all but impossible for a Northerner to attain.
Forcing a Northerner to the Presidential ticket of the PDP is one thing, getting votes from across Nigeria to guarantee that candidate’s electoral victory is another.
Buhari was forced to adopt a Southern Christian running mate to allay concerns thathe was a religious fundamentalist. Without the Southern vote, and devoid of Northern Christian support, no candidate can win the Nigerian Presidency. As the Boko Haram crisis spirals forward, Northern Christians and the Middle Belt will be firmly pushed towards a geopolitical reality that will increasingly favor collaboration with the South.
The prognosis for Nigeria is grim. Geopolitical considerations suggest that the Boko Haram crisis will continue until at least 2015. Its effective resolution will not occur until a Northern Presidential candidate emerges on the platform of the PDP and goes on to win the Nigerian Presidency. The prospect that a Northern President will emerge on the platform of the PDP is slim because Goodluck Jonathan wants a second term, and the odds are skewed in favor of the incumbent. The likelihood that a Northern Presidential candidate will receive Southern and Northern Christian support is fading.
Any path to the Presidency that harms Goodluck Jonathan while elevating his Northern deputy to the Presidency has the potential to lead to the immediate disintegration of Nigeria, or at the least the secession of the Niger Delta region. Without the Niger Delta, Nigeria’s political center is unattractive and the status quo will fight another Civil War if necessary to prevent the possibility of the Niger Delta’s exit from Nigeria.
In the meantime, the rapidly evolving natureof the Boko Haram conflict is alarming. Christian Youth in Jos and Kaduna have begun reprisal attacks in response to the actions of Boko Haram. This suggests that the ordinary folks in these communities havecome to believe that Boko Haram is indeed a geopolitical tool of the Northern agenda. It also implies that they believe that agenda excludes Northern Christians and Southerners. As the conflict persists through2015, and the government continues to fail to contain the crisis, the random reprisal attacks will become more organized. Geopolitics will require that the sectarian nature of the Boko Haram crisis will birth a Northern Christian alternative to Boko Haram. This will be driven not so much by the desire for national relevance by Christian Northerners, but as a means for addressing what they will increasingly perceive as an existential threat.
Unless urgent actions are taken by the Government to tackle the Boko Haram crisis, the path to 2015 will be a dangerous one for the Nigerian nation and its people. The stakes for Nigeria are too high. The geopolitical angle to Boko Haram must be immediately defused. The prosecution of Senator Ali Ndume and other political actors so far implicated in the crisis should be swift, public and comprehensive. Vice President Sambo should also publicly address Ndume’s allegation that he (Sambo) was aware of Ndume’s engagements with Boko Haram. The stakes should also be raised for the sponsors of the violence. It takes millions of Naira to source rifles and explosives, support tens of thousands of followers and to coordinate attacks across cities and states. Boko Haram is a city dwelling sect. The Nigerian security agenciesmust do more to find Boko Haram’s financiers, and to penetrate and neutralize the network. To save Nigeria, Jonathan mustremember that his oath is not to the PDP butto the Nigerian people.

[quote author=Akanbi_edu]@rymz

mac's position is obvious- that the FG/GEJ should be held accountable. What is your position?[/quote]Mac's position is hypocritical, he represents the problem in our government, his position of course takes the burden away from him and his thieving gang and place on GEJ their favourite past time scape goat. But we all see through all that veil of pretense and hypocrisy. Nigeria is a failed state today because of the actions and inactions of him and his gand at the NA. He has no moral ground to call anyone to order or even give any advice. He is better off shutting his mouth.
My position??
Very simple and clear enough, the solution lies with Honesty and sincerity of purpose of those in the position of leadership. People are quick to criticize Jonathan for saying that bombing is what we will have to live with in this country without considering deeper context of that statement.
The reason why Mr. Jonathan made that statement is not farfetched. The President made the statement because of people like Maclatunji and silent Boko sympathizers who distort truths for reasons best known to them.
He made the statement because he knows that the people who are behind the Boko Haram operations are very powerful and prominent leaders of the North. He knows that they are the retired and serving military generals, politicians, businessmen and religious leaders of the region. He knows that there are emirs, imams and politicians of the Islamic North that are confirmed staunch supporters of the Boko Haram movement. Jonathan knows that the Boko Haram sponsors have over the years stockpiled very sophisticated weapons such as rocket launchers from Iran across the regions and in the neighboring countries. He knows that they have standing private armies around the North of Nigeria and in the surrounding countries. Jonathan also knows that the people behind Boko Haram are among those that have access to him at all times and it would be difficult for him to tell them to their faces that they are the ones who actually threw the stones from behind the house and came in the front door to ask who threw it, especially when it is hard to establish concrete proof since they have infiltrated government. On the whole, the President made the statement in order to buy himself time because he may never have a choice but to serve as Nigeria’s Gorbachev of the defunct Soviet Union.
Until all these people decide to honestly give peace a chance nothing tangible will happen. Northern leaders have a very serious role to play in this case but they like to pretend and make it an FG issue. Virtually every Nigerian region has youths or militant groups that can cause thesame scale of violence but the leadership of the regions has been able to control them and give them reasons to avoid violence. Northern leaders should exploit all means to do so with the Bokoharam sect and their silent supporters and sympathizers. That ia my position; honesty of purpose.

Hahahahah. . . Now I see the folly in crediting a naive analyst like you with an average I.Q. . Your brain power is far less than I thought.
Lol. . . Let me get you right, Jonathan is supposed to have acted on the unsubstantiated, wild guess of Azazi who obviously was playing to the gallery? I guess if you were the president, you would rounded up every PDP card carrying member just to give the impression of being effective. . Lol. . Chei, you are a clown, Mr. Azazi's claims wont even hold water in a kangaroo court. . Hahahaha.
If you have any sense at all, you will understand what GEJ was trying to say when he alleged that members of the BOKOHaram sect had infiltrated his government, I bet you took that literally and ran wild.
I bet he would have seemed up and doing to you if he had sacked some people that your gut feelings tells you are behind the bombings even without any concrete proof. Ever heard of the maxim:"keep your friends close and your enemies closer" To show how dumb your illogicality is, you even resort to likening the Job of the PRESIDENT of Nigeria to that of a football coach, Nigga, are you high on synthetic grass? Jonathan is the President of a country with a population of almost 200million people not a mere football team you, slowpoke.
Keep looking at issues in black and white and keep exposing your lack of grasp of the situation.

If this is the case, then obviously, this guys are getting serious support from an organized financiers. Am yet to understand the parts that talk about compensating the families of the suicide bombers, like for real? This claim sounds like BS to me jor!!!

maclatunji: The House of Representatives agree with me and have summoned President Jonathan and his security chiefs to explain what they are doing to combat the wanton violence and loss of lives. You see, they did not summon maclatunji, Rhymz, dbanj or the Boko Haram leader, Shekau. What does that tell you? GEJ is the man we must hold if we must make headway.

People should really understand all I have been saying.

dude you still are not getting the point!!! I am not exonerating the FG just as you are trying so hard to exonerate the participation of the communities and their leaders, simple. Can you stop whining about GEJ and face the issues? My problem with your constant biatching is that in your dictionary, The FG is equal to GEJ alone.
What exactly do you want him to do differently, tell us let us know. You can't be blaming GEJ when some politicians part of whom are in government keep sponsoring bokoharam. You want him to exert military might on the communities or place a curfew or what? Why are you so particular about Jonathan? If he ssays to his security chiefs do whatever you can to stop these bombers and yet these bombs keep going off how is that entirely his fault? Shey u want make him carry gun ni? Jonathan is the head of the government, it is not just Jonathan alone. Obasanjo had thesame problem containing terrorist situation in the country, nobody called on him to resign. Why is GEJ's different? Unless the point the perpetrators are trying to make is to give impressionable people like you a reason to call for his resignation through bombing and stuff. If the antics of the entire leadership of the north is to make the region ungovernable so Jonathan will look incompetent then you will have to agree with me that the problem does not entirely rest on the shoulders of GEJ and the FG, shikena. Stop whining jare!

maclatunji: ^LOL, By the way, the Catholic Archbishop of Sokoto agrees with me about holding the Federal Government accountable, the Governor of Niger State said virtually the same thing. I am now an 'Intellectual Gangster' CLMFSO- Controlled Laughing My Freaking Self Out! You guys no go kill me.

You don't have to laugh at your own dry jokes for effect, your analysis of issues still comes across as lame.
Am sure the arch-bishop did not stop at blaming the FG alone as well. Besides, he is a christian leader living in the NORTH, why will he want to say something that the leaders and people of the north will percieve as inflamatory. Of course, he will put the blame on the door steps of the FG which is understandable but it does not stop there. The Bokoharam attack might look physical but the solution will have to go transcend from the physical to psychological. It is almost impossible to physically stop a made suicide bomber but you can stop the process that turns them into religious suicide bombers. Catching and prosecuting or killing them has so far not stopped them, no amount of exertion of military might will stop them either. It is for a lay person to look at the situation and scream FG! FG! But that will only accomplish little. Am sure Jonathan himseld is tired of this carnage and has done his best. At this point, we, the people that are directly affected will have to face some serious facts and hometruth, leave politics and conspiracy theories out of these. Prosecuting many of the financiers of these murderous gangs is just as the difficult as the politics in it. You will need concrete proof to do so, until that is done, we can voice out suspicion and point out fingers but that is how far that can lead us. For instance,nobody can put Buhari in jail all because he once made an inflamatory statementh unless of course there is a conclusive proof of his connections to the crimes.
The only way we can show seriousness is to join together to help the security forces. Community leaders must speak up and report to the police if anyone is suspected of terrorist activities, take pre-emptive actions and measures, liase with the FG to sensitize the northern youth on the dangers of terrorism. Religious leaders should learn to tone down on the heavy laden political sermons they give in the mosque. . There should be something like an easy tip line to the police available to everyone in case there is any suspicion of terrorist activities anywhere. Everyone should be their neighbours keeper, when disasters happen to your neigbours show concern, give a helping hand, send groups to condole with the victims, give them assurance that you share in their grief and pain, send relief materials to them; dont stand and act aloof like you all are immune to the problems, it is annoying especially when the perpetrators are muslims and most of the vixtims are christians. It is easy for the christians to target the innocent muslims because they have not shown any concern for their plights caused by faceless people fom their folds. The innocent muslims unknowingly give support to the faceless goons in their midst to commit this acts of violence on christians through their reticence their expression of fear and cowardice, the fact that they dont lend any means of support their victimised christian brothers only give the eediots the wrong inpression of subtle support from their muslim brothers.
You, Maclatunji should learn to addreas issues in its wholesomeness and stop this tired games of throwing blames around. You are too bias to be taken seriouly, YES, na me talk am.

maclatunji: On the contrary, you cannot rely on biased sources in research. Proper research, seeks to eliminate bias.

This link gives you a list of antiIslamic websites that were created to confuse Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If Islam was all about Violence, you wouldn't need to waste so much resources on propaganda.

http://islamgreatreligion./fake-anti-islamic-sites/

http://islamgreatreligion./fake-anti-islamic-sites/

if islam was such a paragon of peace why is it synonymous with violence? Why do we muslim adherents not just in Nigeria but also in the middle east killing people and citing the Koran as their source of inspiration. Why is their mode of conversion by the argument of force rather than the force of argument?

rhymz: Not surprisingly, most of what we now know as the Muslim world was Islamized by violence, including here in Northern Nigeria. Today Islam is the only religion that enforces or attempts to enforce its laws by violence – public floggings, limb amputations, stoning to death etc. It prescribes death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam and for Muslims who don't join congregational prayer: The Prophet (Mohammed) said, 'If a Muslim changes his religion, kill him'– Sahih Bukhari4:52:260 The Prophet (Mohammed) said, "burn all those who do not leave their houses for prayer, burn them alive inside their homes." – Sahih Bukhari 1:11:626 Islam's numerous violent injunctions brutalize Muslim mentality such that Muslims are quite comfortable with forms of violence that we infidels find revolting. Hence terrorism, honor killing, stoning to death, forced conversion, killing or threatening of ex-Muslims who leave Islam…all thrive in Dar ul Islam (Islamic world). Not to forget the incessant religious violence here in Nigeria's Islamic north. From the foregoing historical and scriptural evaluation of Islamic violence, it is obvious that Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are indeed true Muslims. The so- called moderate Muslims are those who are either not aware of the vicious dark side of their bloodthirsty hate cult; or whose innate good conscience and humanity has not been overwhelmed by the Islamic imperative to murderous violence. Other “moderate” Muslims are silent Islamist sympathizers who lack the courage or means to indulge in jihadist terror. Many of our compatriots up here in Nigeria's Islamic North fall into this category as evident from the popularity of Bin Laden car stickers, posters and almanacs, as well as the recent Pew study revealing most Nigerian Muslims (54%) support Osama bin Laden. The figure would be much higher among northern Muslims. It will be recalled that some northern Muslims even jubilated publicly after 9/11. So we can expect more Umar Farouk AbdulMuattallabs!!

more demonic quotes from our peaceful koran

rhymz: Not surprisingly, most of what we now know as the Muslim world was Islamized by violence, including here in Northern Nigeria. Today Islam is the only religion that enforces or attempts to enforce its laws by violence – public floggings, limb amputations, stoning to death etc. It prescribes death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam and for Muslims who don't join congregational prayer: The Prophet (Mohammed) said, 'If a Muslim changes his religion, kill him'– Sahih Bukhari4:52:260 The Prophet (Mohammed) said, "burn all those who do not leave their houses for prayer, burn them alive inside their homes." – Sahih Bukhari 1:11:626 Islam's numerous violent injunctions brutalize Muslim mentality such that Muslims are quite comfortable with forms of violence that we infidels find revolting. Hence terrorism, honor killing, stoning to death, forced conversion, killing or threatening of ex-Muslims who leave Islam…all thrive in Dar ul Islam (Islamic world). Not to forget the incessant religious violence here in Nigeria's Islamic north. From the foregoing historical and scriptural evaluation of Islamic violence, it is obvious that Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are indeed true Muslims. The so- called moderate Muslims are those who are either not aware of the vicious dark side of their bloodthirsty hate cult; or whose innate good conscience and humanity has not been overwhelmed by the Islamic imperative to murderous violence. Other “moderate” Muslims are silent Islamist sympathizers who lack the courage or means to indulge in jihadist terror. Many of our compatriots up here in Nigeria's Islamic North fall into this category as evident from the popularity of Bin Laden car stickers, posters and almanacs, as well as the recent Pew study revealing most Nigerian Muslims (54%) support Osama bin Laden. The figure would be much higher among northern Muslims. It will be recalled that some northern Muslims even jubilated publicly after 9/11. So we can expect more Umar Farouk AbdulMuattallabs!!

more demonic quotes from our peaceful koran

rhymz: allow Me to quote very shocking revealing excerpts from that article

“The people of Khaibar came out fleeing on the roads. The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken as captives”- Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512 . Captured women were then Molested: “Those (Muslims) who restrain their intimate desire except with their wives and female captives/ slaves are free from blame” – Quran 70:29-30 “Successful are believers…who restrain their intimate desire except with their wives and female captives / slaves, for these are lawful to them” – Quran 23:1-6. “Forbidden, to you (Muslim men) are married women, except your female captives / slaves” Quran 4:24 Several of Mohammed's wives and concubines (notably Rayhanna, Safiya & Juwairiya) were captive women whose husbands / male relatives were killed by Mo' and his marauding gang. The Quran endorsed this Molestation of female captives and slaves by Islam's philandering “prophet”: Prophet (Mohammed), we (Allah) have madelawful to you your wives, female captives / slaves, daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles, daughters of your paternal and maternal aunts, any believing woman who “offers” herself to you…Q 33:50 Other captives were sold into slavery: "Allah's apostle (Mohammed) sent Sad Zayd Al-Ansari with some captive women to Najd.He sold them for horses and weapons" - Sahih Muslim 19:4345

Now I hope this clearly answers your question, you hypocritical MOFO!! The government of Jonathan is your problem abi? Wait until those nutjob kill a member of your family then all that hypocrisy will clear out. Na Logic mind response na im fit your likes, selfish brute that turns everything to a "we against them fight". What a fool. Islam is piss-FULL indeed, with indoctrinated eediots like you, little wonder you all think like frogs.

“O believers make war on the infidels (non-Muslims) who dwell around you, let them find harshness in you” - Quran 9:123
“When the sacred months are over, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” – Quran 9:5
“Fight them until unbelief is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme” - Q 2:193
“Fight against those of the book (Christians and Jews) as believe neither in Allah nor in the last day…and do not embrace the true faith” - Q 9:29
“Fighting is obligatory for you (Muslims), even if you dislike it” - Q 2:216
“Do you think you would enter Paradise before Allah knows the men who fought hard and steadfast?” – Q 3:142
“Believers take neither Jews nor Christians for friends or helpers” - Q 5:51
“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers.” - Q 3:28.
“Our Prophet (Mohammed), ordered us to fight you (non-Muslims) till you worship Allah alone or pay us Jizyah (extortion) in submission…Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise…and whoever survives shall become your master”– Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386
“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way ofAllah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…” - Sahih Muslim 19:4294
These violent injunctions in Islamic scriptures (Quran and Hadith) clearly promote hostility and aggression towards non-Muslims, and largely explain Muslim proclivity to religious violence as evident from the incessant terrorist attacks – over 13,000 since 9/11 and counting.
The violent injunctions can be traced to Islam's violent origins. Unlike the founders of other major religions who mostly relied on non-violent persuasion to win converts, Islam's founder “prophet” Mohammed used violence to forcefully impose his intolerant creed in Arabia:
“I (Mohammed) have been commanded (by Allah) to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and believe that I am the Messenger and in all (Islam) that I have brought. Whoever says this will save his property and life from me.” – Sahih Bukhari 9:84:5, Sahih Muslim1:31
This Hadith in which Mohammed clearly admits his motivation for violence was to forcefully enthrone Islam, is contrary to the Taqiyya (deception) propaganda Muslims would have we infidels believe – that Mohammed and early Muslims only fought in self defense. Another Hadith drives home the same point of unprovoked Muslim aggression:
“Our Prophet (Mohammed), ordered us (Muslims) to fight you (non-Muslims) till you worship Allah alone or pay us Jizyah (extortion) in submission…Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise…and whoever survives shall become your master” – Bukhari 4:53:386
The Quran particularly Surah Tawba providesfurther evidence that Muslims were the clearaggressors:
“When the sacred months are over, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” – Quran 9:5
“O believers make war on the infidels (non-Muslims) who dwell around you, let them find harshness in you” - Quran 9:123
“Fight against those of the book (Christians and Jews) that do not believe in Allah or in the last day…and do not embrace the true faith” - Quran 9:29
“Prophet (Mohammed), make war on unbelievers and hypocrites, and deal ruthlessly with them” - Quran 66:9
No amount of Taqiyyaspin can misconstrue as self defense the above Quranic verses which clearly enjoin unprovoked warfare against non-Muslims. The violent injunctionsin Surah Al-Tawba (Quran Chapter 9) are particularly important because this was the last portion of the Quran dictated by Mohammed.
Under the Islamic concept of abrogation (Nasikh), these violent “sword verses” (Ayat al-Sayf) in Surah 9 supersede any earlier seemingly peaceful verse. To facilitate unrestrained violence against non-Muslims, Mohammed begins the Surah by unilaterally annulling all treaties:
“Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward the infidels with whom you have made treaties”– Quran 9:1
Mo's violent doctrine was at variance with the prevailing culture of religious tolerance among pre-Islamic Arabs, hence early Muslims were initially reluctant to fight untilMo' coerced and threatened them:
“Believers, what is the matter with you, thatwhen you are asked to fight in Allah's cause you linger and cling to this life?...If you do not fight, Allah will punish you sternly...” - Quran 9:38
“Fighting is obligatory for you (Muslims), even if you dislike it” - Quran 2:216
Mo' further threatened that only Muslims who fought will make it to the Islamic heaven:
“Do you think you (Muslims) would enter Paradise before Allah knows the men who fought hard and steadfast?” – Quran 3:142
Allah's Apostle (Mohammed) said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” – Sahih Bukhari 4:52:73
The initial reluctance of early Muslims to fight is further evidence they weren't under physical attack. If they were, Mo' wouldn't have needed to coerce and threaten them todefend themselves. Or entice them to violence with promises of heavenly rewards (Quran 4.99, 3:157, 9:111).
Prior to Mohammed's Islam; pagans, Christians, Jews, Magians, Sabeans and otherreligious groups lived harmoniously in Arabia, and there were no religious wars. The Sirat Rasul Allah (Islam's official biography of Mohammed) informs us there were even Christian images of Jesus and Mary in the pagan Kaaba, which Mo' later expropriated for his new religion.
The pre-Islamic Arabs offered Mohammed the same tolerant religious accommodation if he would reciprocate and respect their ancestral religious traditions. Initially Mo' agreed, culminating in the “revelation” of the infamous satanic verses in which the Quran endorsed pagan Arab deities – Al-Lat, Uzza, and Manat. He later reneged on the agreement as the megalomanic prophet wannabe could not share the religious limelight with over 300 Arab deities and other pre-existing religious groups.
Subsequently Mo' introduced religious violence to Arabia when in Medina he embarked on forced Islamization after 12 frustrating years of almost fruitless preaching in Mecca, during which he only gathered a handful of mostly disaffected lowlifes as followers.
In Mecca, Mo' constituted himself into a societal nuisance by repeatedly insulting and denigrating pre-Islamic Arab traditions. The Meccan Arabs tolerated these insults while Mo's rich influential sugar mummy wife and uncle were alive, but later responded with an economic boycott of Mo' and his cult members. This pauperized themcompelling Mo' and his followers to migrateto Medina.
Herein lies the so-called “expulsion” of early Muslims by supposedly intolerant pagan Arabs, which Muslim propagandists deliberately misrepresent as pagan Arabs forcibly evicting Muslims from Mecca.
There was no forced ejection; on the contrary some of the pagan Meccans opposed the migration of their relatives who were Muslims. In spite of the alleged “oppression”, many of Mo's converts were reluctant to leave Mecca, and the “prophet” had to threaten Muslims who didn't want tomigrate with hellfire:
“…Hell shall be their home, an evil fate; except the helpless men women and children who have no strength or means to migrate” – Quran 4:97-98
The cock & bull yarn about a spider spinningweb across the entrance of cave in which Mo' hid from pursuing Meccans, is obvious falsehood intended to glorify the “prophet” with an escape miracle, and demonize the Meccan pagans as violently intolerant thereby justifying Mohammed's subsequent violent aggression.
Even today Muslims deploy similar bogus propaganda when they falsely claim Jews drove out Palestinians to establish Israel. Palestinians left voluntarily at the instigation of neighbouring Arabs so that the invading Arab armies would have a clearkilling field for exterminating Jews without hurting their fellow Arabs in Palestine.
See: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1102
After leaving Mecca in frustration, Mo' and his followers relocated to Medina where he had no means of livelihood but attack and rob trade caravans. It was this banditry that provoked the first battle of Islam (Badr) when the pagan Meccans dispatched a military contingent to protect one of their trade caravans.
Islamic scriptures and historical traditions document over 70 battles during Mohammed prophetic career. Most of these were Ghazawa (raids) on non-Muslim communities. Only about 2 or 3 of these, notably the battles of Uhud and Khandaq could be described as defensive. Even these limited attacks by pagan Arabs were in response to incessant Muslim raids, just as the much vilified Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression in the Christian holy land.
Raids are of course offensive, not defensive military actions:
The Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) raided the Banu Mustaliq (pagan Arab tribe) while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others... - SahihMuslim 019:4292; Bukhari 3:46:717.
The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the raid of Hunain…They defeated them and took them captives - Sunan Abu Dawud 2:2150; Sahih Muslim 8:3432.
The Messenger of Allah besieged the people of Taif, but did not achieve victory – Sahih Muslim 19:4393
Allah's apostle (Mohammed) reached Khaibar at night. It was his habit, that whenever he reached an enemy at night, he would not attack them till it was morning. When morning came, the Jews came out with their spades and basket (farm implements). When they saw the prophet, they were surprised and said, “O God! It's Mohammed and his army”. The prophet shouted, “Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed…” – Sahih Bukhari 5:59:510
Note the expression - It was his habit - in the last quoted Hadith (Bukhari 5:59:510) describing Mo's sneak cowardly attack on defenceless Khaibar Jews who were proceeding to farm in the morning.
Mohammed and his murderous gang were in the habitof mounting surprise attacks on defenceless non-Muslims. The surprise attack on the Banu Mustaliq pagan Arabs was similarly unprovoked and cowardly (Sahih Muslim 19:4292; Bukhari 3:717).
During such raids the defeated non-Muslim men were killed, with the women and children taken captive:
“The people of Khaibar came out fleeing on the roads. The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken as captives”- Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512 .
Captured women were then raped:
“Those (Muslims) who restrain their sexual desire except with their wives and female captives/ slaves are free from blame” – Quran 70:29-30
“Successful are believers…who restrain their sexual desire except with their wives and female captives / slaves, for these are lawful to them” – Quran 23:1-6.
“Forbidden, to you (Muslim men) are married women, except your female captives / slaves” Quran 4:24
Several of Mohammed's wives and concubines (notably Rayhanna, Safiya & Juwairiya) were captive women whose husbands / male relatives were killed by Mo' and his marauding gang. The Quran endorsed this rape of female captives and slaves by Islam's philandering “prophet”:
Prophet (Mohammed), we (Allah) have madelawful to you your wives, female captives / slaves, daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles, daughters of your paternal and maternal aunts, any believing woman who “offers” herself to you…Q 33:50
Other captives were sold into slavery:
"Allah's apostle (Mohammed) sent Sad Zayd Al-Ansari with some captive women to Najd.He sold them for horses and weapons" - Sahih Muslim 19:4345
The wealth of the defeated non-Muslims was looted:
“Enjoy the good and lawful booty you (Muslims) have taken in battle. Fear Allah, heis forgiving and merciful.” - Quran 8:69
If the loot was “lawful”, why do Muslims need forgiveness?“Allah made booty lawful for believers.” - Tabari VII:81
Like thieves elsewhere, the Muslim brigands sometimes quarreled over sharing of booty, prompting Mo's alter ego, Allah to proclaim:
“Say, the loot belongs to Allah and his apostle (Mohammed). Therefore fear of Allahand end your disputes” – Quran 8:1
If the Muslim wars in the early formative stages of Islam were in self defense, why did the aggression continue after defeating the pagan Meccans and Mo' passed on?
Under the leadership of the four “rightly guided Caliphs” who were Mo's close associates and clearly understood his hegemonic agenda, aggressive jihadist expansion continued. Muslim Arabs later invaded and occupied North Africa, SouthernEurope, Indian subcontinent and other partsof the Middle East including Palestine, thereby sowing the seed of the current intractable Arab-Israeli conflict which is their favorite excuse for terrorism.
Not surprisingly, most of what we now know as the Muslim world was Islamized by violence, including here in Northern Nigeria.
Today Islam is the only religion that enforces or attempts to enforce its laws by violence – public floggings, limb amputations, stoning to death etc. It prescribes death penalty for Muslims who leave Islam and for Muslims who don't join congregational prayer:
The Prophet (Mohammed) said, 'If a Muslim changes his religion, kill him'– Sahih Bukhari4:52:260
The Prophet (Mohammed) said, "burn all those who do not leave their houses for prayer, burn them alive inside their homes." – Sahih Bukhari 1:11:626
Islam's numerous violent injunctions brutalize Muslim mentality such that Muslims are quite comfortable with forms of violence that we infidels find revolting. Hence terrorism, honor killing, stoning to death, forced conversion, killing or threatening of ex-Muslims who leave Islam…all thrive in Dar ul Islam (Islamic world). Not to forget the incessant religious violence here in Nigeria's Islamic north.
From the foregoing historical and scriptural evaluation of Islamic violence, it is obvious that Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists are indeed true Muslims. The so-called moderate Muslims are those who are either not aware of the vicious dark side of their bloodthirsty hate cult; or whose innate good conscience and humanity has not been overwhelmed by the Islamic imperative to murderous violence.
Other “moderate” Muslims are silent Islamist sympathizers who lack the courage or means to indulge in jihadist terror. Many of our compatriots up here in Nigeria's Islamic North fall into this category as evident from the popularity of Bin Laden car stickers, posters and almanacs, as well as the recent Pew study revealing most Nigerian Muslims (54%) support Osama bin Laden.
The figure would be much higher among northern Muslims. It will be recalled that some northern Muslims even jubilated publicly after 9/11. So we can expect more Umar Farouk AbdulMuattallabs!!

Why are you sounding so angry? Anyway, that was not the only issue addressed, move to the more important ones if you have any serious rebuttals. I guess now you realize the enormity of the argument or debate you decided to participate in.
I am waiting for your other reply and please tone down on the emotional tone, it shows. Like I said before, you dont have to agree with me but just know that when you see atheist, they did not just become atheist for the heck of it. The writers of the bible are not as infallible as they would like us to believe, this whole christianity thing is just one of the dark consequencies of colonialism. . . I shall leave you with a quote: "The most disastrous aspect of colonization which you are the most relunctant to release from your mind is their colonization of the image of God." - Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing How can you guys be free, when you kill yourselves over the images of foreign Gods?

jmaine: People should be fair in admitting that reprisal of this measure was bound to happen some day . .You can't expect the people who are continuously bombed in their worship places and on important religious days not to lash out one day . .more so when the perpetrators enjoy their religious days and ceremony mostly unfettered

You can't also expect them to stay perpetually calm cos you don't want them to spark a religious war . . . How long will one bottle up his/her anger over the loss of their loved ones . . .Reverse these trend of bombing of worship places implicating the Christians and imagine the sheer carnage and riots the ever radical impulsive Northern Muslims will unleash in the name of self defense.

. . . . .

The reprisal is distasteful cos the innocent were killed in large numbers, but same goes to those who also are consistently being targeted in their places of worship . . .

Thank you very much for your very honest and objective comments. Anybody that wants to condemn any reprisal in isolation of what has led up to it is a hypocrite. Maclatunji is the biggest hypocrite I ve seen here on NL since this thread opened up. You are so willing to condemn the christian youth for venting their anger on Muslims whom hitherto have been carrying on like they have no connections to the attacks.
Instead of them showing some sincerity and resolve in helping the government solve the problem, some elements amongst them are busy stoking the fire of chaos and religious war while the likes of MacLatunji sit from afar to pontificate about innocent muslims and holding the FG responsible as if the FG is made up of spirits and ghost with supernatural powers to wish the problems away.
Most of these muslim appologists are dishonest intellectual gangstars using the antics of violence to sabotage the government while they sit in their arm-chairs to criticize the government.
Enough of all the bullshit!!! It is folly to try to act like there is no religious war going on here, the fact that the violence is sectionally religious and regional points to the fact that this whole thing goes beyond shouting FG. One can not be shout "FG is incompetent while in the dark you sponsor these guys to make the FG look bad.
Northern Muslims and their politicians must show sincerity of purpose if this violence must stop or else more reprisals will be inspired if faceless goons from their folds keep killing people from the other religious divide, this is pure logic and common sense of fairness.

jmaine: People should be fair in admitting that reprisal of this measure was bound to happen some day . .You can't expect the people who are continuously bombed in their worship places and on important religious days not to lash out one day . .more so when the perpetrators enjoy their religious days and ceremony mostly unfettered

You can't also expect them to stay perpetually calm cos you don't want them to spark a religious war . . . How long will one bottle up his/her anger over the loss of their loved ones . . .Reverse these trend of bombing of worship places implicating the Christians and imagine the sheer carnage and riots the ever radical impulsive Northern Muslims will unleash in the name of self defense.

. . . . .

The reprisal is distasteful cos the innocent were killed in large numbers, but same goes to those who also are consistently being targeted in their places of worship . . .

Thank you very much for your very honest and objective comments. Anybody that wants to condemn any reprisal in isolation of what has led up to it is a hypocrite. Maclatunji is the biggest hypocrite I ve seen here on NL since this thread opened up. You are so willing to condemn the christian youth for venting their anger on Muslims whom hitherto have been carrying on like they have no connections to the attacks.
Instead of them showing some sincerity and resolve in helping the government solve the problem, some elements amongst them are busy stoking the fire of chaos and religious war while the likes of MacLatunji sit from afar to pontificate about innocent muslims and holding the FG responsible as if the FG is made up of spirits and ghost with supernatural powers to wish the problems away.
Most of these muslim appologists are dishonest intellectual gangstars using the antics of violence to sabotage the government while they sit in their arm-chairs to criticize the government.
Enough of all the bullshit!!! It is folly to try to act like there is no religious war going on here, the fact that the violence is sectionally religious and regional points to the fact that this whole thing goes beyond shouting FG. One can not be shout "FG is incompetent while in the dark you sponsor these guys to make the FG look bad.
Northern Muslims and their politicians must show sincerity of purpose if this violence must stop or else more reprisals will be inspired if faceless goons from their folds keep killing people from the other religious divide, this is pure logic and common sense of fairness.

BlueMurder: So the murder of those scholars who were doing their best to bring the misguided sect to order, means absolutely nothing to you And yet, in the same breath, you blab that Muslims are not doing enough against the group? Do you know Late Shaykh Jafar Mahmud Adam at all? A very popular muslim leader and well known antagonist of Boko Haram (who were still in their infancy then). He made it clear to the group that they had gone off the path of the true Islamic faith. What did he get for his efforts? He was brutally murdered while leading the dawn prayers in his mosque in Kano in 2007. Has his killers been brought to book? No. Rather, the PDP went on to enlist the evil group for its political misadventures. In your warped logic, that man was a coward, wasn't he?

Guy you are more interested in the politics of who is right and wrong. I am not here to discuss conspiracies theories about BokoHaram. And please don't pass your conclusions as mine. Your sheik is just as important as the over a thousand christians that have been killed by this extremist from his fold. If you say you are speaking against them in all honesty, act it, if you claim we are fighting one enemy show us proof of your works, don't tell christians who have been at the recieving end of their attacks how you lost a leader who tried to support them and got no justice or foreclosure as if they have not suffered more. Are you saying Muslims will continue to take it like that of some christian sect continued to bomb their places of worship every week? Are you saying christians have not shown enough restraint and understanding? Imagine Christians doing this to muslims in Onitsha or Asaba for instance?

maclatunji: Yeah! That's right, Muslim clerics and traditional rulers should take over the job of government- brilliant! Muslims get killed virtually every week by Boko Haram and you are here preaching sectarian and ineffective ideas to solve a security problem. Governments Rule and if the Nigerian government is being bullied by any group, shame on it! Your post is motivated by your need to reinforce your belief that Islam is bad. Hahaha! That will get you nowhere, Nigerians are not yet ready to take their security seriously.

your opinion about how I view any religion is BS to the topic. If you thinl you realy know me well, then check all the comments I have made on religious threads, in fact, as I write this, I am in a hot intellectual debate with a christian about the origins and influence of christianity. I care less what you believe, I am not even a religiois person to begin with, I view both the teachings of christianity and Islam as the consequencies of Colonization mental enslavement, I don't leave by their tenets anyway. So you can drop that Christian vs Muslim veil you always cover your hypocritical arguments with.
I am in Sokoto now, and I know what I am talking about. In northern states, parochial religious beliefs always takea the place of common sense. Terrorism is not the kind of crime that a government fights by exerting will power and increasing military might. The BokoHaram problem and acts of terrorism did not start with Jonathan, and you will be lying to yourself if you think the man himself is not overwhelmed. Fact is, terrorism can not be stopped but can be reduced, and the best way to achieve such will be through a network of collaborations between security outfits and the leadership of these communities and states where these attacks have been happening. The security outfits will not achieve anything if your leaders do not show commitment in giving the required information and even material support to them. You can keep blaming Jonathan because you don't like him and his friends but this will not stop even after he lives office. Sincerity of purpose os the only way the security outfit, the leadership of these communities and the clerics can achieve anything useful. But if you want to put it alone at the door step of GEJ, omo nothing do you, wait until e happen to somebody you know then we go see whether u sef go kill christians or kill politician....what a bias religious MUGGU

olawalebabs: Saying muslim have been silent on this is purely 'academic' laziness. Did you know sheikh Jafar in Kano? Alh, Ali Rigasa, and some other big sheikh in maiduguri and Yobe that were all killed when trying to speak against the evil of boko haram. There is limit to what the mallam can say. They neither control the security apparatus or feed them.

what exactly did they say or do? All we heard about was their death, what they said or did to cause their death by Bokoharam is not known. Muslim Leaders are even more afraid and cowardly than the average church person. The FG can only do much from the support and information these religious leaders, community leaders and muslims give to them, these BokoHaram boys live in your communities, they show extremist tendencies, they all witness and here their religious and political views, if they are being used by politician, do they not know these politicians? Even the CIA will need support, intel and information provided by these people to do anything effective. The FG is peopled by human beings not some super-beings that know all. Your leaders need to get off their butts and confront the situation head-on. Am sure they would have done a lot more if it were the mosques and muslims burning and dying every week.

olawalebabs: Saying muslim have been silent on this is purely 'academic' laziness. Did you know sheikh Jafar in Kano? Alh, Ali Rigasa, and some other big sheikh in maiduguri and Yobe that were all killed when trying to speak against the evil of boko haram. There is limit to what the mallam can say. They neither control the security apparatus or feed them.

what exactly did they say or do? All we heard about was their death, what they said or did to cause their death by Bokoharam is not known. Muslim Leaders are even more afraid and cowardly than the average church person. The FG can only do much from the support and information these religious leaders, community leaders and muslims give to them, these BokoHaram boys live in your communities, they show extremist tendencies, they all witness and here their religious and political views, if they are being used by politician, do they not know these politicians? Even the CIA will need support, intel and information provided by these people to do anything effective. The FG is peopled by human beings not some super-beings that know all. Your leaders need to get off their butts and confront the situation head-on. Am sure they would have done a lot more if it were the mosques and muslims burning and dying every week.

BlueMurder: When Muslim leaders who spoke against this evil group were murdered in cold blood, what did the government do? And you, did you as much as spare a thought for their bereaved families?

that is the price they have had to pay for not curbing the excesses of the violent Koranic verses. Until muslim leaders speak in unison not the separate cowardly statements they make for political correctness, BokoHaram boys will continue to kill them separately when they give any hint of showing support through statements. Your leaders are afraid of their lives, so what about christians that go to church everyday even with it is clear to them that those nutjobs might throw a bomb in their midst. If ordinary christians can be brave, then your leaders should show more bravery, simple.

While I do not support the Killing of innocent Muslims in reprisals, I will strongly support any effort that will jolt the muslim community into action.
I have always said this that blame does not entirely rest on the shoulders of FG, that is usually the lazy resort of most of these muslim critiques. The FG will do theirs while the communities too will have to be proactive.
I remember once the Sultan of Sokoto addressing a body of corpse members that went to visit him, he made assuring statements about witholding the security of every person in sokoto irrespective of the religion they profess. He was so assuring that one gets the impression that he was talking from the confidence of the preventive mechanisms put in place to stop anyone from perpetrating terrorist crimes and true to the Sultan's promise, there has been no reports of Terrorist crimes in any part of Sokoto even though Sokoto is the seat of northern Islamic faith.
I believe our muslim brothers are too inactive and silent for comfort. They care less about the fact that the extremists carrying these acts of violence on churches whether anyone likes to believe it or not get their injunctions from the Koran and Hadith. They have been too cowardly standing aloof comfortably, they have not shown any serious resolve to move against the extremists in their means. They are yet to show their christian brothers any hand of support to show them that they are in solidarity with them in the fight of one common enemy, BOKOHARAM. I am yet to hear of any eminent muslim leader go to any of these disaster sites to sympathize with the christian community, neither have they lend any material support to help the victims; no official denouncement even in the face of continued attacks in large scale. We don't hear them do or say anything. Attack on churches in the north has become a norm that happens, nobody says anything besides official statements from FG and sometimes SG and after that life goes on. And you blame Christians who are tired of this collective cowardice of silence, you blame them for interpreting their taciturnity as subtle support? What will you havw them do? Go back to churches and continue to pray about it? If innocent Christians have been dying from these religious attacks from muslim extremist, why should the few now killed in a reprisal attack from christian now cause the muslim community to speak out? Obviously, they are more afraid of their faceless brother than a fight with the christian community, this tells a lot where their allegiance liea.
This is simple logic, if they continue to give the posturing that they will rather stay aloof and avoid the dreaded Bokoharam boys than maintain a peaceful relationship with their christian brothers then nobody is justified to condemn the christian youths who have resulted to provocation to know where the so-called moderates realy stand on the issue.

Expectedly, like I said earlier, the suggestion is bound to leave a very sour and annoying taste in the tongue of many Pauline christian adherents who had hitherto never scrutinized what Paul was trying say in those chapters and verses(but did not have the guts to be explicit enough) but now have to be forced to look at it again.
You claim that the thorn in his flesh could have been his eyes or ears. Do you honestly believe that? Or that was just a weak rebuttal to a suggestion you fear you may find unbelievably true upon careful textual study of those chapters and verses.
Now tell me Mr Anonym if Paul was referring to his eyes or ears as being an agent of temptation that torments him would he have described them as a "thorn in his flesh and a messenger of satan to sent torment him"? So in your own wise interpretation, God cursed man with eyes and ears to be tormented by what they see and hear, realy
When did the eyes and ears become thorns in one's flesh that was sent by the devil to torment a person? Does that even make sense to you, be honest with yourself.
I understand how annoying this issue is but do you realy believe he was not talking about an arousal which unlike his eyes and ears could'nt realy be controlled.
And you dare try to downplay the obvious by ridiculously itemizing my reasons like they held no meaning as to why he could have been a repressed homosexual?
You did not even give any counter argument all you did was give the typical dismissive response typical of intellectually lazy christians that will rather they conform than understand the bible they use in telling every other person they are not saved until they believe in Paul's own explanation of Jesus christ.
A repressed homosexuals will never openly admit that he is aroused by thoughts of other men's physical anatomy, that is a fact. The fact that Paul strangely was always talking about homosexual desires and how people who gave in to it are acursed even though Jesus nor his disciples never addressed such issues tells a thing or two about what goes on in his mind. Whatever thoughts that were going on in his mind causing a member of his body to give in and go against the law was obviously oppressed even though they kept on coming.
And the fact that he never saw the need to get married and viewed marriage as an option for the weak narrow it down to homosexual feelings stirring in his heart.
You don't have to agree with me but don't try to defend the indefensible either, it makes you come across as not being objective; emotional arguments wont do either.

Expectedly, like I said earlier, the suggestion is bound to leave a very sour and annoying taste in the tongue of many Pauline christian adherents who had hitherto never scrutinized what Paul was trying say in those chapters and verses(but did not have the guts to be explicit enough) but now have to be forced to look at it again.
You claim that the thorn in his flesh could have been his eyes or ears. Do you honestly believe that? Or that was just a weak rebuttal to a suggestion you fear you may find unbelievably true upon careful textual study of those chapters and verses.
Now tell me Mr Anonym if Paul was referring to his eyes or ears as being an agent of temptation that torments him would he have described them as a "thorn in his flesh and a messenger of satan to sent torment him"? So in your own wise interpretation, God cursed man with eyes and ears to be tormented by what they see and hear, realy
When did the eyes and ears become thorns in one's flesh that was sent by the devil to torment a person? Does that even make sense to you, be honest with yourself.
I understand how annoying this issue is but do you realy believe he was not talking about an arousal which unlike his eyes and ears could'nt realy be controlled.
And you dare try to downplay the obvious by ridiculously itemizing my reasons like they held no meaning as to why he could have been a repressed homosexual?
You did not even give any counter argument all you did was give the typical dismissive response typical of intellectually lazy christians that will rather they conform than understand the bible they use in telling every other person they are not saved until they believe in Paul's own explanation of Jesus christ.
A repressed homosexuals will never openly admit that he is aroused by thoughts of other men's physical anatomy, that is a fact. The fact that Paul strangely was always talking about homosexual desires and how people who gave in to it are acursed even though Jesus nor his disciples never addressed such issues tells a thing or two about what goes on in his mind. Whatever thoughts that were going on in his mind causing a member of his body to give in and go against the law was obviously oppressed even though they kept on coming.
And the fact that he never saw the need to get married and viewed marriage as an option for the weak narrow it down to homosexual feelings stirring in his heart.
You don't have to agree with me but don't try to defend the indefensible either, it makes you come across as not being objective; emotional arguments wont do either.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There is no such thing as two types of christianity! (I think I have sufficiently thrashed the issue of "Jesus vs Paul). Now as for the sunday vs saturday issue, I ask does it really matter which day one worships God? It is such a petty issue it shouldn't really be worth any contention. As for Paul being corrupted by gnostic influences, this is simply false accusation since the apostles approved of Paul's teaching and preached the same. 1John 4:1-3 tells us how to test the spirits, Paul is not a heretic. 1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 1Jn 4:3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. For numbers 8,9,10. I would rather you gave me a series of statements better defining your stance, however these are my thoughts.[/quote]In response to this, I will like to exhausitively point out bible passage that made it very clear that Paul and the disciples of christ never agreed and had serious doctrinal disagreement contrary to popular beliefs.
When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Galatia and Corinthia-Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don’t have to eat meat anymore or to be circumcised, these teachings ran contrary to Genesis 17:14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision.
So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul was wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities…
Paul sensing how these Apostles from Jerusalem were making a mockery of his own version of Jesus's teaching had this to say to the Galatians in chapter 1vs6 and I quote: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL"
note the capitalized phrase "different gospel", obviously paul's teachings in Galatia and Corinthia were not thesame thing being taught by the desciples and brother of christ James and this disagreement was not minor as the book of Acts tries to paint it as we would come to see later in his letter to Galatia that the disagreement was very serious.
In Galatian 2vs11-21
In this chapter and verses, any unbias reader can tell that there is a fundamental doctrinal misunderstanding between what Paul was teaching and the understanding of Peter and Barnabas of with regards to what Christ's teachings were all about.
Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. And let's not forget that all what one has is only Paul’s side of the story but Peter’s recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament (perhaps that was conveniently left out for a reason) . Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul because Paul with all his claims never met or saw Jesus till he died. Also, there is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter.
In Acts 4:31 luke gives an account of how John and Peter prayed to God for guidance and boldness to preach in the name of christ even after being warned the priests and the other leaders to desist from doing so. Now this account tells us that they were filled with the holy spirit as they prayed, If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up.
James is Jesus’ half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people still have to eat meat?
Again we don’t have any account of Peter’s story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse Galatian2:13.
Look how in verses 15 through 17,
Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have mentioned it. How could he say those things to Peter when Jesus said this to Peter in matthew 6vs18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it". Every time I read this passage, I am always tempted to question the authenticity of Paul's conversion and the belief by today's preachers that Paul got a higher revelation of christ's mission superior to those of his disciples who followed him around, heard his teachings, understood his mission and the his ideologies. It is laughable that anyone will believe that Paul got a spiritually superior message of christ's mission. Notice how he rarely talks about Jesus's teachings but concentrates on very different teachings that boarders on a decine atonement through a belief in death and ressurection of Jesus christ, a teaching very similar the myth of Roman gods Osiri and co. How their violent death brought atonement of sins to those that worshipped them.
How come Jesus was silent about his own mission according to Paul's teachings?
Everything Paul taught was in complete disagreement with what Jesus is known to have preached. He was a heretic and unfortunately his teachings form the basis of today's faith based christianity, little wonder the majority of christiandom has not made ant serious improvement spiritually cos Pauline's teachings contrated mostly on belief and strongly opposes work.
Let's see further how his teachings continued to contradict his claims of teaching about Jesus.
In Romans 14:20 paul teaches: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble"
Meanwhile In the Book of Acts 15:29 the Apostles wrote a letter to the gentiles to abstain from certain foods and that not all foods were declared clean: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell".
Paul sensing that the Gentiles were begining to listen to the appostles
could'nt hide his anger when in Galatian 3:1-3 he wrote: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
Obviously Paul was having problems convincing people of his very strange teachings. There were people that were disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law was over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.
It is very evident that there was disagreement even though the christian xhurch likes to paint a different picture.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]For numbers 8,9,10. I would rather you gave me a series of statements better defining your stance, however these are my thoughts.

8. I'll dismiss this as rubbish because the author has no proof whatsoever besides it is irrelevant to the topic and only serves as a way to maliciously undermine Paul. The best reasons he could come up with were that Paul never married and made "condescending" remarks about women choosing cleverly to forget that Paul spoke against homosexuality.
9. Romans 3:7 was used out of context here. in the passage, Paul isn't making statements but is asking rhetorical questions. Read Rom 3:1-8 to put it in context or better still read the whole of chapter 3.[/quote]The Suggestion that Paul was a gay man is usually met most often with responsel ranging from pure dismissal to outright anger. I know the idea that a writer of the Scriptures, which are considered to be the direct Word of God in much of Christianity, could be gay is startling to say the least. However, it is still important that we rid ourselves of emotinal outburst and critically look at the issues.No doubt, Paul was a very dramatic man, deeply convicted and emotional.
In fact, his overly emotional nature should cause a stir as he lived in a society that did not look kindly upon such emotional display. But this in and of itself could simply be a unique trait possessed by Paul, not necessarily representative of his orientation. However, his stark emotionality leaves him more vulnerable to the probing of a textual critic, making our exploration a bit simpler. Looking at Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul’s last before his (presumable) execution. In this letter, he gives one a slight clue to the battle going on within him.
Allow me to quote an English translation of his words in Romans 7:23: “…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members”. This passage reveals more than we might first notice upon first reading. On a closer look, one discovers that Paul speaks in the larger context of this chapter about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts.
However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.
Expectedly, you will want to explain this to be merely a passage referring to the human struggle with sin, however, bringing in other elements of the Paul's letters, such interpretation becomes a bit lacking. In his earlier and 2nd letters to Corinthians, one notices yet another clue in this intriguing puzzle in chapter12:7 NASB and I quote: “there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me”, now put this passage in a larger context and try to decipher what he was trying to say.
In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins. In his letter, he says that “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB). This seems a bit odd as Jesus is not seen as discussing sexual orientation, a subject one would believe he would preach during his discussions regarding sexual indiscretion, assuming that he considered the actions or state of gay individuals as being sinful. It is important to remember that Paul views himself as a representative of Jesus, so this contrast should of course cause a stir in the reader. This is not the only time Paul is seen displaying tendencies that can only be described as homophobic. He makes what appear to be negative statements toward gay individuals in his first letter to the Corinthians. It is, however, worth noting that the concept of sexual orientation had not yet developed, so such verses refer to lust and sex as stand alone sins, not in any way connected with a concept of sexual orientation. Keep this in mind as we continue to examine the issues at hand. Aside from the homophobia displayed in the Pauline letters, another often- overlooked trend becomes noticeable upon careful reading. Paul seems to take a negative view of women and marriage. He writes to his male readers, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1 NASB). Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widow in 1 Corinthians 1:8 NASBs: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I”. Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, 1 Corinthians 1:9 NASB “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. One is probably now wondering why Paul would feel the need to create such a defensive web of misogyny and anti- marriage bias if Jesus did not seem to have an issue with gay individuals.
Let's not forget the fact that Paul knows very well how Judaic laws frowns at adultry. So while Paul is responsible for the propagation of Christianity, he was writing with the perspective of a convert who was previously an extremely dedicated and educated expert on traditional Jewish laws.
To indulge his passions, were he gay, would have been a grave sin.
Now that I have considered this array of clues from Paul’s writings, it becomes important to finish addressing the passage with which I began my study of Paul's writing. Talking about “war” in Paul’s “members.” There is a strong possibilty that this war in his members is thesame thing he meant by “thorn in his flesh” that served as a “messenger of Satan.” Whether or not it is the case, the question still remains… What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind?" You and I know it is the Pen.i$, Looking at the anatomy of a male. Arms, legs, and the like can be controlled by the mind. The pen.i$ remains the member that often is not so easily controlled by the mind. Obviously, this is the member that I believe Paul was referring.
And considering the other segments we have examined, I also believe that Paul was in fact a repressed gay individual. While this cannot be proven, it does seem one of the few answers that properly fits the questions raised by the evidence. If Paul was a gay man, a drastic rereading of Scripture would be demanded in light of such a discovery.

Anony's Quote:
1. First of all, it is disputed that Hebrews was written by Paul but for purposes of our discourse, we'll assume it was. Paul does not preach a different gospel from Christ and Hebrews 6:1 is not an attack on the gospel of Christ but is a charge urging Hebrew Christians of that time to grow in Christ and not continue to stay at the same level as when they first came to the knowledge of Christ. For better context read from Hebrews 5:11 to 6:1 Heb 5:11 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. Heb 5:12For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's word.You need milk, not solid food; Heb 5:13 for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Heb 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity,not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.
rhymz reply:
When paul talks about dead work, he is talking about Judaic laws, hope you realize that? How can you in all honesty claim that he was not opposed to good works as an element to the attainment of salvation when he refered to it as dead?
Even you, contradict your own point; how do you become spiritually mature or developed without working on the belief or faith?
Paul believed the statement in Ephesians 2:8: "You have been saved by God's love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God."
Is it not obvious the man was preaching against work. In contrast, On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" Jesus replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself." "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:25-37) Jesus makes no mention of believing in him as the Messiah as a requirement to inherit eternal life, even when asked directly what one must do! However, a believer in Paul's church needed only make a statement of belief to fulfill all the requirements of Paul's Christianity, no expectation of spiritual growth was included in the new church.
In all his teachings, Jesus never de-emphasize the importance of work. How do you show faith if not through your work. Just believing and confessing allegiance to christ is not enough to save you, that is what Paul is advocating.
“For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20 “For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28 The “law” of course being traditional Judaic law which Jesus wholeheartedly supported:
Also, in thesame Romans chapter 3:20
paul made his disdain for the law very clear by saying that one is not justified in God's site by observing the law, that instead that it is through observance of the law that one knows about sin or one is tempted to commit sin.