₦airaland Forum

Nigerian immigrants in US & UK often tell their friends and relatives back home that they feel safer and better in US/UK than Nigeria! So much for the ongoing genocide of black men by whites or cops in the US. When even black people feel better in white countries than black countries, then you know that the problem is not just systemic racism as the BLM and MSM makes it out.

This is partly because it forces them to confront the depressing reality that their own 'brothers' sold them out. And also importantly because, black Americans despite the narrative of historical "oppression" are on average much wealthier than blacks in Africa. If blacks in Africa were a civilization, much wealthier the blacks in US, this call for reparation would never happen. And US blacks would just return to Africa and forget about slavery & racism.

So, in 2019, there's a way blacks can end their problem with whites. Return to Africa. But they won't. Lots of blacks in Africa in fact, would snatch the opportunity to leave for white countries. Lot of successful Nigerians have settled in the US and they don't even think of returning to their country.

After the slaves were freed, they and their descendants could've just returned to Africa. African governments could have offered them asylum with provision for free and comfortable transportation away from the US over time. But none of these happened for obvious reasons, black didn't have the civilization at the time to meet such needs.

So blacks remained in US, to demand reparation nearly two centuries later. As there were two parties to slavery - the white buyers and the black African sellers, any reparation must be borne by both parties. And yet black Americans never demand even the slightest compensation from blacks in Africa.

Nigeria have a prolific film industry(Nollywood) that always star blacks in lead roles, but because the movies pale in comparison with US, Indian or even Korean films, US blacks concern themselves with screentime in Hollywood film instead.

Now, the ancestors of US blacks were sold into slavery by other blacks in Africa in return for material gain. If blacks had a civilization, they could have sourced for wealth via alternative means and the idea of selling their neighbors and prisoners would have been abhorred to start with. Today, these calls for slavery reparation are further consequence of the lack of black civilization.

And then you have the blacks. Blacks are the only major demographics for whom we can't find a clear record of civilization, comparable to the rest. People, including blacks go settle in India, middle east or western countries all the time for better life, no one wants to comes to sub-saharan Africa, because the countries are relatively less developed and offer nothing unique.

Now, everything blacks protest for, they'll not be protesting if they had a civilization to provide those things for themselves. Whether it is trivial as "screentime" or significant as slavery reparation.

Black Lives Matter, yet what have blacks built for black lives, and other lives? Where are the black analogs of Isaac Newton, Avicenna or Aristotle? Where are black analogs of the Sassanid Empire, Abbasid Empire or Greek Empire?

Today, Japanese are a technological giant, Chinese compete with the US for economic & military domination, Indians are making great strides in Medicine and the Arabs while not doing much presently can boast of the contribution of their ancestors modern science.

This brings me to the title of this article. Blacks don't have a civilization. And all their constraints and failures as a demographic or ethnicity stem from this.

When John Boyega stand in the protest to declare, "We have always mattered", I'm like, "OK?" Aside the fact that we're human beings, why do we matter? If tomorrow, all the blacks vanished from the earth, will the world miss us, what would we be remembered for?

BLM make such argument as cops or whites that kill blacks often walk free. Or that cops, unlike criminals are state sanctioned enforcer of the law and should be held more accountable.

Funny enough cops who kill whites do walk free, and it all boils down to circumstantial evidences in the court of law. But the real flaw in these arguments is that if the race of the cops killing black isn't white, it wouldn't matter to BLM. Black cops kill blacks more commonly in Africa, and I doubt BLM ever consider this.

So, No. The BLM have no moral ground to stand on. It is built on ignorance and dishonesty. It is a racist lie.

This mean that for an equal population of black and whites, police have to deal with more criminals in the black population than the white. So, a smaller proportion of the country population commit crimes at the highest rate and so encounter the police more frequently, and thus are more likely victim of police misconduct.

Failing to acknowledge any of this, the BLM continue to march on. And so it has become a meme in the intellectual cycle at this point, a profit making venture. I mean, this movement is a joke, it obsesses over exactly what? The about 3-6% of the killers of blacks, in return for donations.

I have engaged with the partisans of BLM before and despite whites accounting for only 6% of all murderers of black, despite cops accounting for 4% of all murderers of blacks, despite blacks accounting for 12% of all murderers of whites, these people remain adamant that white on black murder is the real problem.

Another claim is that blacks are 2.5 times more likelier to be killed than white by police. But how much of significance is this. Your chances of getting killed as a black by police is 0.001%, it is even over ten times lower if you're an unarmed black. In 2018, unarmed blacks killed by police account for only 0.7% of those killed by civilians.

So, where are the several other stats some of which I mentioned in my last posts that paint a more complicated problem than "racist police"? Here are a few.

Blacks committed violent non-homicide crime per capita at twice the rate of whites[1], and homicide per capita at 4 times the rate of whites[3], in 2018 and 2016 respectively. According to the Journal of CDC, over the course of 1999-2015, blacks committed homicide at 3 times the rate of non-blacks, and 8 times the rate of whites, per capita[2].

Reference -
[1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6631a9.htm
[3] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

In my last post I exposed the folly of BlackLivesMatter and the 'anti-racist' narrative on racial targeting and murder of blacks by cops or whites in the US. The summary of my position was that in order to justify these protests, an evidence, preferably a form of data revealing the extent of the murders is needed. How common are these murders and how often are they driven by racism?

No evidence is presented, but we're all expected to join the protest, and excuse the rioting and looting even if we're blacks living in Nigeria and have never crossed the border.

The mainstream media(MSM) recently makes the statistical claim that police use force against blacks at 7 times the rate of whites. OK, that's for a start. But don't the police get the benefit of doubt? What other proof? We all know police use force against men at multiple times the rate of women, but we understand that there is an explanation for this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo

When I lived in the gulf states, I arranged several dates online with black women from Southern and Central Africa, over the span of one year. They all seemed interested, but as soon as I announced my nationality(Nigerian), they immediately ghosted and blocked me.

The only two I managed to secure dates with did not know my nationality before meeting me. After our date, when I revealed my nationality, they were shocked. They admitted their disbelief at how a fine gentleman like me could be a Nigerian. In their words, Nigerian men are generally loud, adamant, dishonest and risky to deal with.

One day I decided to ask my female pal from Zimbabwe why Southern Africans are so dismissive of Nigerians. She respond that Nigerians in Zimbabwe and South Africa are notorious for perpertuating very serious crimes, they're popular among lowlifes whom dealing with often yield disastrous outcomes. She said until she left Zimbabwe and met Nigerians like me her perception of Nigerian men were mainly negative.

OK, so unless you live under a rock, you might have heard about the George Floyd murder. I don't usually speak on race, as I mostly write about religion - specifically Islam.

All sympathies to the victim and his loved ones. But this is as far as it gets. The Black Lives Matter(BLM) and their supporters need to present evidence that

- this murder was racially motivated
- police murder of black suspects is a common occurrence.

No evidence for these were presented. Police murder white suspects too, and at twice the number of black suspects if FBI statistical evidences are unbiased. Again if the FBI stats for Police killings are reliable, police killed 0.001% of blacks in 2019. See - Race statistics of People shot to death by US police

Also, FBI records states that blacks kill whites at twice the rate that whites kill blacks. In other words, the only existing evidence on the subject don't support the underlying narrative of racist police. So, how do we know that police are racially targeting and killing black men extra-judicially?

See - Race & Homicide in US, by number

Also, see - Homicide Rates by Race in US

To go about protesting based on hearsay, and a few statistics that may or may not necessarily be reflective of racism is pretty uncivilized.

Born2Freak:
Username. Why are you not so frequent here anymore?

I've posted on every issue I feel is worth addressing in Islam. Plus, I'm just worn out. It is very exhausting to keep up with the posts - researching, writing, editing, typing and sometimes addressing the responses. Yet, I dragged on like this for several years, I'll post regularly for several months or nearly a year, take a sabbatical, only to return again.

But the final straw, the moment I decided enough was enough was when I resolved there were contradictions between the Qur'an and Science. I've come to the conclusion now that I might have wasted several nights and weekends on "Qur'an Alone" activism, which was my primary motive for posting here in the first place.

Will it be good if majority of Muslims reject hadith for a more modern, rational exegesis of the Qur'an? Sure, but how long will it last? The same faults that plague hadith also plagued the Qur'an admittedly to a lesser extent. So, it will only be a matter of time before these Qur'anists see the faults in Qur'an.

Ironically, if these Pakistanis were targetted by white Brits, no media would identify them as any other than Muslims or Pakistanis. So, when you say, "the mainstream media outlets are at war with Muslims". Think again. The mainstream media are overwhelmingly leftist lobbies, and depending on the time, their agenda and motives, they vary their oppositions and allies. They have no perennial friend or foe.

For instance, in the UK, there are the infamous sex grooming gangs that exploit young girls - young white girls, to be specific. Although these grooming gangs are apparently over-represented by Pakistani men and they targets majorly white girls, the British Media repeatedly refuse to identify these men as 'Pakistanis' or 'South Asians'. When the media is pressed to identify these men by demographics, the media identify them as "Asian."

Now, who is Asian? A Japanese, an Indian, a Saudi or a Filipino? An Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian or a Muslim? It would be like identifying Egyptians as African. Theoretically, this is not inaccurate, but in practice it is highly misleading. The media is aware that identifying these men as Pakistanis would be clear give away of their faith, so to supposedly forestall Islamophobia or racism, the media identify them "Asian".

Ask the christian conservatives what they feel of the media referring to the victims of Sri Lankan bombing last year as "Easter worshipers". If you talk to the white nationalist groups in UK or US, or Jewish nationalists of Israel, they also have accounts and citations of clear media bias against them. It is the same with say, black identity movements in US, like the BlackLivesMatter.

Yeah, the media outlet does disservice to the image of Muslim. But so what? They do the same to other identitarian groups and movement that their sponsors or financiers oppose. On the flip side, the media outlets sometimes even under-report or exaggerate events either in pandering to Muslims or in helping the public's image of Muslims.

#3. This Antiquated Bemoaning of the Media ... Why?

Citation here - https://www.nairaland.com/1798376/antiquated-bemoaning-media-why

Unfortunately this is not a well written thread. But it remain relevant today, nonetheless. The Muslim community believes the media singles them out with poor representation or no representation. And in this thread, I sought to disprove that, albeit my execution was off.

Over the years, my take on this have significantly modified. Are Muslims and Islam demonized with negative portrayal in the media? May be. But see, all identitarian group believes themselves as victim of media misrepresentation.

Also, the notion that jihad is only declarable by the caliph of the ummah is mistaken. Who is a caliph in Islam? Any Muslim man with followers and in command of a militia, may declare himself caliph, destroy his opponents and impose his rule. This was how the ummayads, abbasid, and the Saudi dynasties rose to power.

So, what has happened is that over a generation or two, a great shift have occurred. In our time, if you hold the views on Jihad that the imams of fiqh held, or that the ayyubid and ottomans held, you're considered a terrorist. See, you hold the views of Abu Bakr as Sadik and Umar ibn Khattab, you're terrorist.

The problem of Muslim 'terrorism' won't go away by just pretending it has nothing to do with Islam. And no amount of ammunition and drone strike can defeat it for good. It is long over due for Muslims to begin a 12 step program in addressing 'terrorism'. And the first step of which is not condemning it, but admitting its theological roots in their religious texts.

In this thread, I opined that the modus operandi of the Talibans, or Al Shabaab bear legitimate support from the religious traditions. And polite as I could, I proceed to enumerate several hadith references. But no matter how polite and professional I expressed myself, I was putting forth the same position as the Christian and Jewish opponents of Muslims - that Islam is a religion of bloodshed - and for that the moderator(or more accurately, the gatekeeper) - mclatunji - deleted my post. So you can no longer find this thread on the internet, no matter how hard you scour.

Look, before the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, and maybe even shortly after that, no Muslim scholar taught military Jihad was solely intended for defense. For much of Muslim history, offensive jihad had been the foreign policies of the caliphates, emirates or sultanate for the purpose of expanding their terrain and acquiring bounties.

#2. They Ask You About Jihad

In this thread I uncover the theological root of the so called Muslim terrorism. At the time when ISIS or Boko haram were bagging headlines after headlines, the Muslim community remained in denial. Speeches after speeches, writings after writing were issued by scholars after scholars condemning violence and denouncing the authority of these terrorist groups.

Now, this was in about 2013/14 when I grew disillusioned with the sanctity of hadith books. Once I rid myself of the intellectual shackles of the 'oral traditions' and by extension, the ulemas, I began to question everything the contemporary scholars and imams talked on Islam. Before my rebirth, I would say that Boko haram and Al Qaida just misunderstood Islam, the same lame ass talking point of every cookie cutter Muslim you could meet today.

IMAliyu:
@usermane
What are your opinions on the sunnah?
I already know you don't believe in the hadith though.

What is the sunnah? Sunnah is basically part of the hadith literature.

Why?

Firstly, notwithstanding it's relevance, the subjects in the list matters little to the common Muslim. Most Muslims could care less if Muhammad is the greatest messenger or if it was Abraham, and not Muhammad that taught the salat or hajj.

Secondly, my writing here is relatively piss poor. My editing is lacking and my sentences are at times cringy to read. I was a quite a young lad at the time, cocky, naive and barely versed on the subject I was talking. Yet I was hyper-excited to share my newfound Islamic views.

All the same, Top 10 Misconceptions among Muslims remain my most engaging thread. Thanks to first publishing it on the Religion section, it generated so much heat over my reversion to heterodoxy and controversial stance on Islamic tenets.

#1. Ten Misconceptions Among Muslims

Citation here - https://www.nairaland.com/1493271/ten-misconceptions-among-muslims

Ten Misconceptions among Muslims was my debut thread. It marked the beginning of my dusk in Sunnism. Before it, I was a normie sunnite. I wasn't the ideal sunnite, but I practiced. I engaged regularly in the obligatory rituals, occasionally in the supererogatory rituals, and I honored the ten commandments.

But there were teachings that never convinced me from an objective point - amputating thieves, prohibition of dating before marriage etc.

In this topic, I list ten essential subjects misconceived by Muslims, and today, despite significantly shifting my Islamic views, I remain supportive of my claims in the list. No such thing as Islamic name, and Qur'an is not an overview of Islam fleshed out by hadith.

Now, the misconceptions on these list remain rampant among Muslims. And, that in years since publishing this piece, not much have changed in the Muslim mindset, is rather poignant. In any case, I think this remains a relevant topic. But in retrospect, I feel I botched its delivery.

X

Introduction

I've posted on https://www.nairaland.com/islam for nearly 7 years, and in this period, I discussed and picked apart the most orthodox elements in Islam, particularly those elements as hadith or sharia - which plenty of Muslims quietly question, but are afraid to speak out.

This thread will review my old topics. On each topic, I'll talk of my objectives, background works, and challenges in posting.

Table of Content

Introduction

JaceBlaze:
If we didn't have countries like Botswana,Rwanda and Kenya as shining examples of what hardwork and determination can yield,maybe you guys' stale assertion of South Africa being successful because of the white man's touch would slightly make sense.But those countries don't have white people and are doing pretty well which then blow your argument out of the water.

Your problem is that you can't distinguish between 'Whites did help to get South Africa to where it is' and 'South Africa would have been nothing without whites'. Perhaps, this stem from lingering grievances against apartheid that you bear.

IronGalaxy:
apartheid actually held South Africa back. The country would have been far without it

Well, I didn't say apartheid helped South Africa.

KLEINBASS:
This one's they where scammed into thinking that their donating money for South Africa. Even today there is no record or trace of that money reaching any struggle arm.

OK. What is the Southern Africa Relief Fund?

Regardless that does not give you the rights to come to South Africa and run a round like headless chicken with drugs. Just stay and fix Nigeria instead of trying to contaminate the world d with your filthness

Nigeria is still a work in progress. We're moving forward. The richest man in Africa, Dangote, is Nigerian. I hope you know that. Unlike you, we didn't get the whites to assist us since our independence. Nearly everything we've built since 1960 has been by our hands alone.

You need us in your country, that's why you grant us visa. Our country is overpopulated. We have a smaller land mass than South Africa, yet our population is more than thrice of South Africa. Hence, job scarcity, leading Nigerians to emigrate.

IronGalaxy:
You mean our country would have been like yours if it wasn't for the superhuman and god-like white people right? Nothing can ever be achieved with white people right? Dubai needed whites to be what it is right? The Chinese too?


The illiteracy and inferiority complex among you is infuriating

No, he mean that South Africa's growth was assisted to some degree by whites. Not that the blacks didn't do anything, but white contribution is something that is not insignificant as to overlook.

Could South Africa have reached its current state without the whites or non-black settlers in general? Maybe. But we can't be sure, given the state of South Africa's own close neighbors. I have friends from Zimbabwe and they tell me how lazy South Africans are.