₦airaland Forum

trenchcoat: What facts? The claim that Maitatse was actually a Christian is not a fact. It is just a part of your conspiracy theory.
First of all I am not Professor Dauda Ojobi, a former secretary of Northern Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), a retired Professor in Benue State University faculty of Law, the 3rd Reverend Father from northern Nigeria, after Paul Gindiri, and Ganaka, The first Nigerian overseer of Baptist Church in Kaduna, and One time commissioner of Justice in Bauchi State.

If you cannot believe what that person of such influence said and you call that conspiracy, then you are here to either argue or confuse yourself the more. I am not trying to insult you but I think this Professor is more intelligent and more influential than you and has gone to places and mingled with high level people than you, yet you think its a conspiracy? This Professor wrote it and passed it for us to know what the CAN organization had and have been planning, why do you need to dispute his facts?

And this ladies and gentlemen is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. Stating the qualifications of some random character online is not evidence of some grand Christian conspiracy to start Boko Haram. Telling me that he has mingled with all sorts of people doesn't somehow make what you're saying he said actually true.

trenchcoat: Why can't a Muslim be a terrorist? What is the religious persuasion of members of Boko Haram? What documents do they reference as the source of their ideas?

Boko haram are not Muslims, they are using the Muslim name to dent the image of Muslims, is Jerry Gana a Muslim? Where did they get all the weapons and bombs they use in killing innocent people? Boko haram kills both Muslims and Christians and majority of the people they kill are Muslims.

Islam teaches peace and has no linkage to terrorist, you are being beclouded by the conspiracy theory that Muslims are terrorist, Alqeda were formed by American Christians so also Boko haram. Check this out Boko Haram Is A Covert Operation for CIA – Wikileaks Report http://abusidiqu.com/?p=9793, Wiki leaks has more information than most of the so-called security personnel we have in Nigeria.

This is why I say you're either unserious or just enamoured with conspiracy theories while making textbook examples of logical fallacy. Members of Boko Haram say they're Muslims fighting for an Islamic state. You just sit back and say they're not Muslims because they've done something bad. Is it the case that no Muslim can ever do something bad? Really you have to first accept that you have a problem if you're serious about solving it.

Even if Al Qaeda was formed by Americans, does it mean that they're still being funded by America? Does that mean their members are no longer Muslims? Or does that make them Christians?

trenchcoat: What I mean is that you pick 5 incidents listed and refute them with evidence showing otherwise. I had to take that as like I earlier said its not a hear say, this should give you an insight that I am talking based on experience and not a "I heard this or that".

Having said that a brother tintingz: Nigeria Youths Kill Several Muslims During Prayers
has given you more links to what you thought could not be given and still you are arguing better get your mind right and start thinking positively. You see that is why you see I do not like debating with most people here because most of you are here to argue, you have been talking and you have not even for once given us any link we gave you more than enough but because you are hell bent and having biased mind on Muslims you seem not to agree or comprehend, so what's the point of investing if you still see beyond the horizon that there would be lost? No need of cos!

Your statement about me getting my mind right is offensive to me and my "religion". I hope the mod takes note because if I respond in kind, I shouldn't be penalized. Did I say it couldn't be given? Is that what I actually asked for? Last time I checked, I asked for any of you to actually counter the lists of atrocities committed by Boko Haram and other Islam affiliated groups. You've not done that. Instead, you're just mumbling something else. Please get your own mind checked.

golpen: @thehomer, @babyosisi

You guys should take a trip to the world of rational thinking. What we are saying here is that the muslim Ummah as a whole does not support this babaric act of terrorism. Our people have also been victims of this same boko-haram. The public sites bombed also had muslims in them and I can't remember a bomb being invented to be muslim or christian sensitive, but you christians because of your natural hate for Islam as a religion and the people as muslims, tend to embark on those incidents as your saving points in any argument, because you think it as stigmatising the muslims.

I'm already in the world of rational thought the question is are you? Pointing out that Muslims are also victims is one of the reasons why you should have been against this Zakir person, who said all Muslims should be terrorists, coming to Nigeria. A country with fanatics who are Muslims who also feel that they're fighting for an Islamic state to be established.

golpen: The ones @tintingz presented to you are even very little compared to those the muslims suffer from the hands of christians and jews. The christians were rejoicing, when american soldiers invaded iraq and afghanistan, molesting their women and destroying the mosques and spraying the cross on the Qur'an. The christian kid in america lived his life of coffee and toast when the middle eastern child cannot even hope for a morrow. The havoc been wrecked on the palestinians is even too high to talk about. Maybe you should go watch this movie 'unthinkable' and you'll understand. Yet with all these, muslims have never made it a point in any of our arguments with you guys, we only cite at them when you bring up the BH issues from which we have also suffered.

Be rational please...thanks.

Of course. You keep blaming the Americans and the Jews but forget the very Boko Haram right in your backyard. My friend, please take the beam out of your eye so you can see clearly to take the mote out of your companion's eye.

Who said the Christians were rejoicing with the invasion of Iraq? Why should Afghanistan have been invaded when they were harbouring terrorists? If you Muslims were serious and curbed the excesses of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers like this Naik person, then you would have a leg to stand on.

Mr anony: The point you are missing is that both are giving specific instructions that determine function. Your argument that it is a molecule has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

It has everything to do with the point you're making. The fact that DNA is an actual molecule out there just destroys your analogy.

Mr anony: This further proves my point because we are in the kind of universe programmed to such specifics that certain complex interactions of atoms result in specific information that gives rise to purposeful creatures. I hope you also know that bricks simply interact according to physical laws yet we can tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a house

I don't see how it proves your point. We can also tell the difference between a grain of sand and the sun.

Mr anony: lol you have shown nothing. computer code is just a bunch of symbols like these also are: ykhagy6=vuudk=ll,o,.+3hy\ii

But, DNA is actually a physical molecule consisting of nucleotides, sugars and phosphate. I see how easy it is for you to demonstrate computer code. Now is whatever you type out on your computer actually a DNA molecule?

Mr anony: I don't think a computer code is necessarily a mind acting on physical objects

Fine. Now please tell me. Is this line of inquiry leading to your God? Yes or no.

Mr anony: Actually that's your strawman. What I've been saying is that the universe is designed because it functions according to a set of specific complex yet arbitrary physical laws

How is it a strawman? Clarify by answering true or false to these statements:
1. The universe is designed by God.
2. The moon was designed by God.

Edit: How do you know that the physical laws are arbitrary? Are you assuming this or do you actually know this?

Mr anony: Lol of course I'm the confused one whenever you can't read correctly

You're confused because you find it difficult to appreciate the implications of what you've said.

Mr anony: There was no contradiction there. Not necessarily designed is not the same as not designed besides I was very clear in explaining the sense in which they are not necessarily designed.

This is ridiculously naive. Something is either designed or not designed. If something is not designed, then it is designed. There is no middle ground. This is elementary logic. Your attempt to weasel out when your ignorant self contradiction is laid bare is pathetic.

Secondly, have you been able to educate yourself on neutron stars, viruses and sand? Because until you do, you're still making another fallacious argument.

Mr anony: Then I'll say a vacuum is not necessarily designed.

Now a vacuum too is not designed. That's fine too.

Mr anony: I think it is either your comprehension skills are truly poor or you are purposely being dishonest. If you don't understand what I am saying, ask me to clarify myself. Misrepresenting my argument and then proceeding to argue against your misrepresentation is definitely not the way to go.

I'm yet to actually misrepresent any of your arguments. So far, you've just been trying to weasel out of direct questions and demonstrations of your fallacious lines of thought. I think your problem is beyond reading comprehension. It is just your own confusion of what you're saying and ignorance of the implications of what you say and the terms you use.

You're still welcome to quote me making the argument you attributed to me.

Mr anony: Good, now we shall proceed however let it be known that you have just contradicted yourself by first claiming that you don't know that the universe necessarily exists the way it does and then later claiming that you know the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

I did not say that I knew the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does. What I said is that it is logically possible. You really should avoid trying to place words in my mouth.

Mr anony: Halt wetin? We have only just begun. Yes of course I recall saying that. I also recall saying that all physical possibilities are logically possible

It is exactly what you have said that I have presented. If you feel I have misrepresented you, please show how.

I said:
1. I do not know that the universe necessarily exists the way it does. i.e whether or not it is possible for the physical constants to be different.
2. It is logically possible for the universe to have different physical constants.

You on the other hand are claiming that I've said:
3. I know that the universe does not necessarily exist in the way it does.

But, I have not said 3 in any way.

Mr anony: What I meant when I spoke about chaos is a situation where the universe does not follow the current set of physical laws which it now follows in fact it would be so random that we will not be able to pin it down to any set of particular physical laws. Note that this universe has a specific set of physical laws which define what is possible within it. We have also established that it is logically possible for these physical laws to be very different than they currently are. For something to be truly chaotic, it has to randomly obey and disobey the physical laws of this universe.
Since I have already argued that the physical is a specific order, my idea of chaos is a logical possibility which we do not observe within our specific physical order and this proves that the workings of our universe shows a specific complexity and hence can be said to be designed.

How is what you've said different from what I pointed out you meant? You can clarify with examples.
Secondly, you didn't answer the question I asked but some other question you laid out for yourself. The question I asked was whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

Mr anony: Now let us look at your argument I skipped earlier

As I said your argument here does not follow.

Remember that the physical laws that define the behaviour of the universe do not exist necessarily however, they are contingent on necessary laws such as laws of logic. For example; there is no possible world where 2+2=5. but there are possible worlds where the speed of light can be different.

How do you know that the physical laws do not exist necessarily? Have you checked against some other universe? The laws of logic are axiomatic and it is a category error to refer to them as existing.

Mr anony: Note also that even though 2+2=4 necessarily exists, the law in itself cannot create anything neither can it actually cause anything to happen not to talk of causing a whole universe to begin to exist. For a universe to begin to exist, and function according to any specific order, an intelligent being must necessarily exist to bring it to be. Basically: Without God, no universe.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is just misinformed. That 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatic not that it exists. Using existence to refer to it is a category error.

Secondly, you don't seem to understand what the point of those laws of logic are. They are axiomatic. i.e they are required for rational discussion to occur not that the universe depends on them. The universe depends on physical laws. For one to think and carry out rational discourse, that process requires an axiomatic acceptance of the laws of logic. Totally different concepts.

The part about this intelligent being is what you're supposed to demonstrate but so far, you've not done that.

Mr anony: It is funny to me though how you knew earlier that Seun was necessary to create Nairaland and Python/Html laws were also necessary. However immediately I told you that the laws of the universe were contingent on necessary laws, you immediately switched to the equivalent of "Seun is unnecessary to create nairaland because the Python/Html can create Nairaland with no intelligent input". Your anti-God bias seems to be blinding you to simple logic these days.

What I pointed out to you was that your analogy was poor. Please take the time to actually read through my response there again.

What you're doing once more is just some more category error because the word "law" is attached to them. The laws of logic are totally different from physical laws. You really need to grasp this before you can proceed with anything.

Mr anony: Wow Wow Just WOW! This is just disappointingly terrible coming from you.

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer.

You said:
1. Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible(logically possible) worlds
2. I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible.

In case you didn't notice, you have just said that: it is logically possible for the universe to exist another way therefore the universe does not necessarily exist in the way it does.

Do you deny this?

I see that this is where you've decided to halt the discussion when you find things difficult. Do you recall saying that not all that is logically possible is physically possible? What you're claiming I said directly contradicts the idea that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. Please read through what I said again and read through your own misrepresentation of it.

Then please tell me whether or not your idea of chaos is physically possible.

Mr anony: My simple question which you dodged was: Is the universe necessarily the way it is? "Yes", "no", or "I don't know"

Please answer so that we can move on. Stop dancing around.

Asked and answered here. You also quoted my response here.

Please proceed.

Mr anony: Good now let us recap.

This is the definition of what it means to be necessary:
Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds i.e. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it to exist any other way.

The sentence in bold is wrong. Something necessarily exists if it is logically impossible for it not to exist.

Mr anony: Now to answer your question: "Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?"
Answer: I'll answer by making this statement. Physical possibilities are subsets of logical possibilities i.e. all physical possibilities are logical possibilities but not all logical possibilities are physical possibilities. Kinda like how all chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. If you disagree, be sure to present a physical possibility that is not logically possible.

Good. Now is the idea of chaos you presented physically possible?

Mr anony: You first conceded that it was logically possible for the universe to exist differently when in page 1 you said this:

Notice in your response above that you have granted two possible worlds with universes working differently. Infact I pointed it out to you when I replied:


We went go back and forth on this until you claimed you didn't know whether the laws that define the functioning of the universe exist necessarily or not here.

Then immediately after (in fact in the same post) you said you didn't know if the universe was the way it was of necessity, you said said this:

Again I pointed to you that you cannot say "however the universe turned out" without presupposing that it is possible for the universe to turn out otherwise. especially after you had just claimed ignorance of whether the universe could turn out differently or not.

Wow. This is amazing. For some reason, you think that talking about a hypothetical amounts to a concession that the hypothetical is the case.

For me to concede that the universe is not necessarily the way it is, I would say something like: "the universe is not necessarily the way it is." And I've already told you what I think about this.

Mr anony: The reply that followed was most amusing, and here it is:

Especially in the light that you have now explained to us that: A thing exists necessarily if it is exists in all possible (logically possible) worlds.
Don't you think that the bold shows that you have clearly conceded that the universe does not exist the way it does necessarily? Or are you still going to claim that you don't know if it does?

So for clarity, let me put your words next to each other.





Now thehomer, once again, is the universe necessarily the way it is? "Yes", "no", or "I don't know"

After you have answered, we shall move on.

You just quoted my response and I haven't changed it. Is there something confusing about what I said? You already accept that physical possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities so what is so amazing about what I said?

Now you're free to proceed.

Mr anony: Yes it is true that if a law exists necessarily, then it has to exist.

Okay.

Mr anony: Lol, The argument you presented here does not follow and I'll explain why in a bit but so that we don't go flying off tangents, first I want you to properly respond to what is about to come next

I'd really like to see you show it.

tintingz: Nigeria Youths Kill Several Muslims During Prayers

(Reuters) - Gangs of armed youths in the volatile Nigerian city of Jos attacked Muslims as they gathered to celebrate the last day of Ramadan on Monday, killing a number of them and burning their cars, witnesses and the military said.
The city, which lies between the country's mostly Muslim north and the predominantly Christian south, has been a flash point for ethnic and sectarian tensions between the two faiths.
www.nairaland.com/750508/nigeria-youths-kill-several-muslims


Boko Haram Has Killed More Muslims
www.nairaland.com/975670/boko-haram-killed-more-muslims


Christians Killing Muslims In Onitsha
www.nairaland.com/7213/christians-killing-muslims-onitsha


Christian Youths Kill Muslims In Reprisal Attacks At Gonin Gora, Kaduna
www.nairaland.com/966604/christian-youths-kill-muslims-reprisal


Birom Christians Eat Roasted Flesh Of Muslims They Killed In Jos
www.nairaland.com/844296/birom-christians-eat-roasted-flesh

Man Caught Planting A Bomb In Jos
A 35 year old man was caught while trying to plant a bomb at an Islamic School in Bukuru, Jos South local government area of Plateau State.
www.nairaland.com/984714/man-caught-planting-bomb-jos


Mob Kills 2, Burns Mosques In Adamawa
A mob killed two people and burnt mosques and homes in an overnight raid on a mainly Muslim village in Adamawa state on Friday.

“It was around 11:30 pm when a crowd from Imbur, a Christian populated area attacked Gwalam village dominated by muslims, setting homes and mosques on fire. a resident, Abubakar Hussaini said.
www.nairaland.com/845586/mob-kills-2-burns-mosques


@thehomer and tiarabubu tell babyosisi to give the source of her lies she posted.

Okay so lets be clear. You're not saying that Muslims didn't commit those acts, you're saying that Christians have attacked Muslims too.

trenchcoat: What you posted above was just lifted from the opinion pages here.

Well with all the facts the man stated you still call that an opinion?

What facts? The claim that Maitatse was actually a Christian is not a fact. It is just a part of your conspiracy theory.

trenchcoat: Even though I a am a Muslim which I am proud of, here is a point of correction,a Muslim is NOT and will NEVER be a terrorist, please do not address Muslims with such disparaging words. Advice your fellow Christians to concentrate on their own religion, if they want to say anything about Muslims or Islam let them have proper knowledge of it, you cannot fly a plane until you have proper knowledge of how to fly it.

Why can't a Muslim be a terrorist? What is the religious persuasion of members of Boko Haram? What documents do they reference as the source of their ideas? This assertion simply won't fly and this is why I say you guys are simply not ready to address glaring issues among those who share your religious views.

trenchcoat: Notice that so far, of the long lists that have already been posted, If you have noticed that what is the point of you arguing? Having stated the facts, points and footage.

you're yet to actually pick 5 to refute. Why? I don't get what you mean here.

What I mean is that you pick 5 incidents listed and refute them with evidence showing otherwise.

udatso: Check my reply about someone who asked that question of the context in which been a terrorist is ryt and I already replied that....no muslim should terorrise an innocent person.even the guilty, its not for the muslims to take up arms and kill them..there are laws.

But Dr Zakir Naik doesn't agree with that. He said every Muslim should be a terrorist to Americans. Is it possible that there are some Americans who are innocent?

udatso: Secondly am quiet surprised that you don't see any fault in someone burning down or insulting the belief of another...modern world according to you is tolerance...is someone who burns the quran in the modern world...you see my dear, when you apply this tactic, you will find out that the person who actually burnt the quran or publish fake copies actually isn't tolerant at all...if he was, he would have nothing to do wt another's faith...

I still don't see what the problem is. I see nothing wrong with burning any religious book that someone bought with their own funds. Neither do I see any problem with insulting other people's beliefs since obviously, you're welcome to do the same to their documents and their beliefs as long as you bought it with your own money. It is not the appropriate response to go out and kill them.

udatso: as for the vatican city, the fact remains that mosque can't be built there....seriously, if you are asking me to point out which university doesn't allow mosque to be built in this country, I won't reply your messages again cos its like asking me to give proof of wen CAN got involved in political matters...

Is the Vatican City actually a country? Are children born and raised there? Yes I'm asking you to point out which public university does that. A private university is not a public university so please show me the public university that does that. Did I say CAN cannot be involved in political matters? Did I say some Islamic council cannot be involved in political matters? If one is allowed, the other is allowed the point is that none of them has some special place in policy making.

udatso: I am a terrorist to lesbians and gays...now that's a nice statement to make in that context..do you need more?

Yes I do because that is not a nice statement to make either. Unless you think the statement "I am a terrorist to Muslims" is a nice statement to make.

udatso: You don't even know who muslims pray to...you really know nothing about islam sir

Sorry that should have been praying to God. Does insulting the prophet stop you from praying to your God?

trenchcoat: What is the video supposed to show?
Did you get to watch it?

I haven't watched. I'm asking you to tell me what it is supposed to show then I'll watch it.

trenchcoat: Well orchestrated genocide? Really? What you're saying sounds like a conspiracy theory. You need to provide some evidence for your claim about CAN because last time I checked, Muslims have often destroyed churches in Northern Nigeria.

This excerpts could give you some insights;

Professor Dauda Ojobi, a former secretary of Northern Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), a retired Professor in Benue State University faculty of Law, the 3rd Reverend Father from northern Nigeria, after Paul Gindiri, and Ganaka, The first Nigerian overseer of Baptist Church in Kaduna, and One time commissioner of Justice in Bauchi State.


MAI TATSINE, BOKO HARAM AND CAN: THE BITTER TRUTH

“Marwa Maitatsine, was a Christian until his death!!
Back in 1954, there ware series of meetings by the highest body of Christian association in the northern Nigeria, in Jos, which I happened to be the secretary, taking the minutes of that meeting (then, I was an undergraduate student of Christian Theology). Part of the result of that meeting was, to sponsor some people among ‘us’ to go to Arab countries as new Muslim converts, and learn Arabic and Islam. Their mission is to come back to Nigeria as Muslims clerics, use their Islamic knowledge to preach violence, distort original Islamic teachings and if possible cause a riot in the North that will make northern Nigeria a history. Five people were nominated for the job, and sent to Sudan to start their mission. 3 of them refused to come back and execute their plan, but spent the rest of their lives in Sudan as true Muslims. The remaining two; Muhammad Marwa and Birema came back, Marwa was sent to Kano, and Birema was sent to Niamey Niger Republic.”….Pro­fessor Dauda Ojobi


Mai Tatsine the obsolete version of Boko Haram, which began their reign in late 50’s in Kano and some other parts of Northern Nigeria, their ideologies were similar to that of Boko Haram, they forbade what Islam allowed, and allowed what Islam made haram. They claimed western education is sin, they rejected anything brought by technology, they were popular with saying, wearing a wrist watch is haram, using radios and television is haram e.t.c. (considering the technological advancement of that period). The spiritual leader of Maitatsine movement was Muhammad Marwa a.k.a Mai Tatsine. The Emir of Kano Sanusi, once suspected Maitasine as fake Muslim when he discovered Maitatsine received goods from Vatican Palace. After sarki confirmed his findings, he expelled Maitatsine out of Kano, in early 60’s. Mai Tatsine was later brought back to Kano by Gov. Rimi in 1979. Rimi believed that Maitatsine would help him win his reelection through charm. After the Maitatsine’s death, Shagari, the then President set a Anya Goru panel to investigate the crises. Prof. Dauda has made his submission in that panel, but when the President, saw the report, he said no, the white paper will not be issued on this report, because it may result to crises, so the white paper was not issued, till date.
Professor Dauda became Muslim in 1966, after he came back from Rome, where he went to further his studies, in Christian Theology. He is still alive and has become a Muslim preacher for over 40 years. What I quoted above was from his lecture I attended in Bauchi, 2002.

-Ever since, no any Christian scholar or CAN executive denied this statement from Prof. Dauda . Are they waiting for his death before they deny it?
-Security operatives that always claim they want uproot the Boko Haram mayhem did not investigate in that angle, why?
-Why the relationship between Jerry Gana (CAN chieftain) and Muhammad Yusuf, founder of Bokoharam? The former has bailed the later from police custody several times.
-I see a double standard approach and hypocrisy by the security personnel, in the investigation.
-I began to believe Boko Haram is the creation of some enemies of Islam possibly CAN (not Christian), is never a creation of Muslims.
-Remember, Hillary Clinton once said Taliban is their creation, to fight Russians.

I beg your pardon, if this write up hurt you in any form, it’s not intended, but facts need to be set straight.Himself for your digestion.

What you posted above was just lifted from the opinion pages here.

If you're seriously suggesting that this Maitatsine was actually a Christian, then you're just too deep in your conspiracy theory to see what lies before your eyes. How many Christians go around preaching from the Qur'an? What you're saying is that we have this man who preached from the Qur'an, based on his own understanding, he decided that certain things were now permissible to him and his followers and he acted on that information he got from his studies and you're magically telling me that he was actually a Christian preaching from the Qur'an?

Wake up my friend and advice your fellow Muslims to desist from terrorism and work towards bettering themselves and their communities. What you're doing is just trying to give these people a pass because you happen to be a Muslim.

Notice that so far, of the long lists that have already been posted, you're yet to actually pick 5 to refute. Why?

udatso: Before you point accusing fingers on another religion, you should check yours first. I have watched the video and he said churches are not allowed in islamic countries which I fully support. Let me ask you this, are mosques allowed in vatican city? Hell no..so why are you so particular about it...in Bayero university kano, there isn't a church there as they were nt allowed to build but space was provided for them for their services...equally other universities in christian dominated state do not allow mosques to be built in their schools tooo...its a fifty fifty case to me so why are you taking this as a point to take him down....

You should be ashamed of what you're saying here. Why are you against non-Muslims building their own places of worship with their own funds? Is Vatican City an actual country? How many children are born and raised there? If churches aren't allowed to be built in that university, then no places of religious worship should be allowed to be built. That is how secular countries work. Which public university in a Christian dominated state doesn't allow mosques to be built? Seriously what you're doing is simply saying that Muslims aren't good citizens for Nigeria.

udatso: When I was in secondary sch, we had a teacher we nicknamed terrorist....we dnt call him that cos he goes about killing christians or people..he was a terrorist to us because he was an expert in flogging...most of us were so poor in maths that we were flogged on daily basis...when he approaches, we quiver with fear...zakir said every muslim should be terrorist, but in wha regards? You didn't include it cos it doesn't suit ur plan.he also said a policeman should be terrorist to criminals, but you left that out..this is just a case of you trying to defame this gentleman for no good reason...and I can assure you this that the only way u can get something to attack him is if you quote him out of context....open your mind and watch the video in whole...the videos you posted are all morethan 1 hour lectures but you gave the link of the short version so you can support your hate with it..and about enemies of islam, who are they? Are the non-muslims the enemies of islam? The enemies of islam are those who would go about spreading lies about islam(always writing false books about islam, fake quran or causing mischief(burning the quran, insulting the prophet)...these are the actual enemies of islam...y can't christians for once practise their religion and leave us alone to do same? There isn't negative thing you would say about this man, that I won't defend...clear ur mind of hate and ur judgement unclouded...peace be onto you

This is just ridiculous. You're now trying to equivocate on what it means to be a terrorist. When you find yourself defending terrorism, you should slow down and think about what you're saying. Firstly, what does it mean to say that somene is a terrorist? And in what context is it fine to be a terrorist?

So burning the Qur'an is mischief. What you're implying though is that you're not ready to live in the modern world. If someone buys a copy of the Qur'an and burns it, are they stopping you from practicing your religion? Does insulting the prophet stop you from praying to him?

probsolver: As for the UK Ban.
He has been to UK several times to giv talk b4 a journalist wrote an article quote him out of context that he said 'every muslim shd be a terrorist' and call for his ban. Which UK govt did without investigation and he has challenge the action in UK court even Indian govt and some Indian Human Rights activists join in challenging UK govt so its a big lie saying Indian govt ban his TV station from airing.

He did say that every Muslim should be a terrorist. Now in what context is that a nice statement to make?

trenchcoat: I guess the footage on the article could not be viewed but here is the footage from youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7XjFZSSF9Q&rel=0&fs=0&showinfo=0



The compilation is false let me point out a few;

All the incidents that happened in Jos,Yelwa Shendam,Tafawa Balewa, Zangon Kataf and Kafanchan were well orchestrated genocide to wipe out all the Muslims in that area, they have planned to kill all the Muslims in Jos so as to make it the headquarters of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). If you could notice some of the Christians have disassociated themselves from the dreaded CAN group due to the bad representation it gives real Christians.

Well orchestrated genocide? Really? What you're saying sounds like a conspiracy theory. You need to provide some evidence for your claim about CAN because last time I checked, Muslims have often destroyed churches in Northern Nigeria. What is the video supposed to show?

trenchcoat: For your information I shuttle between Jos,Kano, etc so I have seen these with my bear eyes not a hearsay.

This is anecdotal at best and frankly the fact that you shuttle all over the place doesn't mean that the information you have is accurate. What would help you is if you were able to refute those incidents mentioned.

AbdH: I and all the Muslims I know did not take part in the poll or at least they never mentioned it and I know they would have if they had been questioned. This statistics is a lie!

If it was a random sample, then the results are accurate. If you disagree, then it is because you don't understand statistics.

maclatunji: He is a lecturer. His lectures that I have watched make sense. Sorry, can't watch your video at the moment.

Look at it this way, why has the Indian government not acted against this 'terrorist' you are trying to nail?

Maybe it is because his followers will go on rampage.

rahamAllah: Most of these nut head bigots(false Christians) are not even practising what's in their book never to talk of interfering in other peoples religion.
Let them just go relax their ugly minds and let the tolerant Muslims do their thing.
Live and let live pls.

And the intolerant ones that would be encouraged by this terrorist sympathizer? This man who doesn't understand that Nigeria is a secular state where one is free to build churches or mosques?

Hmm. Looks like there's a mole in CBN. How were those images leaked?



Another probe is on the way.

Provie: Faith & Reason ar quite compatible. Faith proceeds from reason/logic. Here it goes:

1. there is a supreme being>

2. this supreme being can do all things>

3. all things include the impossible>

4. the supreme being can do the impossible.

Talking of evidence, havnt we (scientists inclusive) ever seen & confirmed sometin happen without reason/explanation?

Faith and folly are two different things, plz note!

How is it impossible if the supreme being can do it? Is it possible for this supreme being to commit suicide or is that impossible?

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]A splendid afternoon to everyone.
I want us to have a discussion based on the title of this thread.
Is faith a negation of reason? There has been a great many number of people who over the centuries have claimed that faith and reason are incompatible but is that true? Do religious beliefs fly in the face of all reason? Let's consider this: there have been many strongly held scientific beliefs that have been proved to be wrong but that doesn't necessarily mean that all scientific beliefs are wrong or are not based on reason. Why then do we have to view religious beliefs any differently?[/quote]I really hope you'll stay and engage in this discussion.

I do think that faith is incompatible with reason. To begin, faith is belief in the absence of or against the available evidence while reasoning or rational thinking is belief commensurate with the available evidence.

The way they can work together in a person is by selective application of reason. Thus, people who have taken something on faith generally refuse to subject those things to critical reasoning.

BetaThings: I never expected civil language from you
Deny? You have an well-established and resourced lies infrastructure
Look at some of the products below
Were 25% of what you posted true, there would have been no need for those expertly "sex-ed up" stories
https://www.nairaland.com/1177010/hoaxes-fabrications-islam-muslims

If 25% or less of what was posted is true, then 75% or more is false. That means it should be easy for you to show us the ones that are false. So, which ones are false? Do you have a compilation of Christians going on rampage to murder Muslims?

lanrexlan: With all the above lists of yours,how many christians are still residing in kaduna,kano? Because I think there should no christian again residing in these areas after all the erroneous lists you listed above,that's what we are saying.Media and Islam,war or peace? I have seen different statistics of what you listed above.

Can you point out the incidents in the list that are wrong? Are the killings aimed at driving away all non-Muslims?

Blaming the media won't help you because it isn't the members of the press that are killing people, but people chanting that their God is great. That you've seen different statistics means that the incidents happened but the figures you have are different. Can you show us these figures?

trenchcoat: I would like to crave your indulgence that in Plateau State Kuru to be precise the Christians killed hundreds of Muslims, with women and children and threw some in wells while some were burnt.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2010/01/201012333947758520.html

Maybe what you've said is true but the article you linked to doesn't say that. You're welcome to compile your own list of Christians going on a rampage. I would like to see it.

Thanks.

tintingz: babyosisi can lie o!! Chai...
[img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgdews5yUB7GE9LtU8rEYaq3aS2O-i9e4LAMPke4kxDvZptPi3GgmUhA[/img]

Which statement was the lie? Can you please point them out to a bystander?

Mr anony: Lol, you are just clutching for straws here. I have made myself clear.


Go and read my answer again. Also read the article I linked.


Still clutching straws are we? Worship like Love is not an action, it is a state of being. I can be chanting Halleluyah and yet not be worshiping just like I can be singing a love song and yet not be loving.
Secondly: In what way is looking at beautiful women a sin?
And thirdly: Not only dragons, if you like talk about hobbits and elves you would still have to show from the bible where you saw that they will be in Heaven with the saints of God

It is pointless for me to drag this on since you wish to now run away from the clear problems with your ideas such as free-will in heaven, the devil and other angels choosing otherwise despite the fact that they knew God in his full glory, they had desires that humans are supposed to have in heaven and the fact that the devil never had flesh to contend with. I've already pointed these out so I see no reason to follow you down whether or not watching beauty pageants glorifies God or unicorns and dragons in the Bible so my work here is done.

Deep Sight: That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

Punk I sent you to your room without supper. Now put the viagra down. Put it down! Or do you want another mouth scrubbing?

Mr anony: The point is that you don't even understand what your "direct questions" are. Allow me to press you a little bit on your answer. After that, I promise I'll handle your questions.

Now yes it is true that something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. By "possible" here does it mean physically possible or logically possible?

Logically possible. Now answer my direct questions.

Mr anony: We will come to that as soon as we have sorted out what it means to exist necessarily.

Sorted. Now please quote me making that concession.

Mr anony: If I recall correctly, this is what I said: "the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily"

Exactly. If those other laws exist necessarily, then it means that those laws have to exist.

Mr anony: That means that the laws of the universe are contingent upon laws which necessarily exist. Is it that you don't know what necessary means or you are blind or just disingenuously setting up a straw man. Which is it?

I know what it is but it appears that you do not. Note what I highlighted in blue. If certain laws necessarily exist, then you have effectively relieved your God of its duties because he is no longer needed to create those most basic laws.

You already accepted that what I said about necessity was correct but you come down here in your confusion and short term amnesia to wail that I do not know what you just agreed that I knew.

Mr anony: This is getting quite boring really. I suspect your problem is that you don't know (or are pretending not to know) what is meant by necessary. Let me see if I can help you. What do you think is meant when someone says that a thing exists necessarily? Once you understand what that means, then we'll begin to make some progress.

You've started this terrible habit of once again avoiding direct questions. I presented you with what you meant by chaos after you wailed about not comprehending what I said. And I asked you a direct question but you're yet to answer. Instead, you're once again dancing around. I know what it means to say that something exists necessarily and when you asked me this question about the universe, I answered you directly.

Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. Now will you please answer my direct questions? Then answer this question too. Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?

Mr anony: I have showed you the same over and over but it seems you are not getting it. It makes no sense showing you something you don't even understand. I'll ask again what do you understand is meant by necessary?

Please quote me making this concession.

Mr anony: uhm the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily but that's by the way, I'll ask you what do you understand is meant by necessary? An answer to that will help us tie in this argument so it doesn't fly into multiple directions.

Wait what? That's not by the way. What you've just conceded here is that the universe doesn't need a God. Let me explain the implication of what you've said before you start whining once again.

Saying that the laws of the universe exist necessarily means that in all possible worlds, the most basic laws of the universe have to exist. If this is so in all possible worlds, then what role is there for a God? Since if they're necessary, then it cannot be that they would be absent.

Mr anony: Dude, this doesn't still change the fact that DNA consists of constituent parts arranged in a specific way so that they give specific results.

"DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses."

"Software, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations."

The point here is that DNA gives instructions to a cell telling it how to function while Software gives instructions to a computer processor telling it how to function. Yet rather than explain why you think one set of instructions is more likely than the next, you are here dancing around over definitions that have no bearing on the question.

I've already done that. DNA is actually a molecule and like many other molecules e.g ammonia, it doesn't need to be designed but computer code is actually code and that has to be designed.

Mr anony: DNA is not merely a molecule represented as code, it is a molecule whose atoms are specifically arranged in a certain way such that they give specific sets of instructions to living cells. In the same way a computer program is a set of symbols arranged in a particular way such that they give a specific set of instructions to a computer processor.
So to follow your in your footsteps,

"....From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if a specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have these specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist."

Now how about when these sapient creatures themselves function based on a specific set of instructions? Your call

Atoms in molecules are specifically arranged in a certain way. I hope you're aware that the DNA molecules simply interact with other molecules based on physical laws.

But you've not shown that DNA had to be created by sapient creatures since it is a molecule just as ammonia is a molecule that is out there. While I've show you that computer code had to be created by sapient creatures.

Mr anony: Good, we will come to God later. For now you will still need to show us why you don't think it is designed. Why is one set of specific instructions less likely than another set of specific instructions to you?

Is this line of inquiry supposed to lead to your God? I don't think the universe is designed because design requires minds acting on physical objects.

Mr anony: No I wasn't, I was showing you that there is a difference between "the universe is designed" and "everything in the universe is designed". In the same way "a car is designed" is very different from "everything in the car is designed". Showing that for instance the door handle was not designed will not prove that the car was not designed. That is the fallacy of composition. To prove that the car is not designed, you must show that the constituent parts of the car do not work together in a specific manner.

Actually, what you've been saying is that the universe is designed and that everything in the universe is designed.

Mr anony: How do you read? What happened to your comprehensive skills

My comprehension skills are fine but it looks like you don't even know what you've been saying. You're just confusing yourself.

Mr anony: That's exactly what I said. I do not know enough about it to make that call.

Then you cannot make that conclusion.

Mr anony: First of all I never said in my response to your query about water and electrons that water and the electron were not designed. You really need to learn to read properly.
Now of course I have said that God specified the instructions and laws by which we have a moon and water and electrons therefore God designed them. Notice that I am arguing for design from the starting point that there are specific instructions that define the universe therefore it can be said that things following from those instructions can be said to exist by design.

Did you read what you just wrote? This is why I say you're confused. You said.

Mr anony: water - not necessarily designed
electron - not necessarily designed

Your problems appear to be due to short term memory problems and poor reading comprehension. Would you like to change your previous response?

Mr anony: Notice also that the question with the list was you trying to find out how I infer design. That meant I have to now look at all the examples as individual sets on their own. And when I do that, I'll have to examine whether they consist of constituent parts working in a specified manner. Water and the electron in that sense are not necessarily designed.
What you are committing is the fallacy of composition. You are trying to argue that if the electron is not designed, therefore the universe is not designed. That's like saying if mud particles are not designed, then mud bricks and consequently mud houses are not designed. It doesn't follow.

Have you looked at them? Because if you haven't, then you cannot make that conclusion. You're saying water and electron are designed on the one hand and they're not designed on the other. You're deeply confused.

Where did I make that argument? I merely pointed out your self-contradiction and logical fallacy.

Mr anony: I don't see where this line of reasoning is leading you. Did you mean something else by a vacuum? If so pray tell

By vacuum I meant what physicists mean by vacuum.

Mr anony: Again I remember I said "if by a vacuum you mean nothing" If you meant something else, then tell me what you meant.

By vacuum, I meant:

A region of space that contains no matter.

Mr anony: Shown in this very response.

No you haven't shown it because you thought I was making an argument when I wasn't. Or you can always quote me making that argument.

Mr anony: but the bible also wouldn't call it sin. For a thing to be sin, it has to be committed. Sin does not happen to people. People actually do commit sin

The Bible already says having certain thoughts is a sin you on the other hand are just attaching conditions to make yourself feel good.

Mr anony: I've answered this here

No that doesn't answer the question. I'm saying the devil and those other angels didn't even have any flesh at all yet they rebelled.

Mr anony: You are the one missing the point

Can Mr. Dahmer who remembers how he lived on earth say "you know what God, I'm here in heaven now and although my greatest desire is and what my life is all about is to glorify you, I will not be glorifying you?

That's just it. As far as I can see, he can in fact say that since we know that those angels whose greatest desires was initially to glorify God decided not to do so.

Mr anony: The remaining part stems from your false assumption that worship is an action instead of a state of being in devotion to God which it is. Second is your false assumption that looking at beautiful women does not glorify God. . . .and finally I don't know from which bible you read that unicorns will be floating around in Heaven.

So worship is no longer an action? What about all the chanting of Hallelujah? Now hanging out looking at beautiful women glorifies God? Well bring on the beauty pageants. Mr anony says its all okay now. You do know that the Bible refers to unicorns and dragons. Would you prefer it if I replaced unicorn with dragon?