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.

IronGalaxy:
very ironic. One of the reasons the rest of Africa can't stand you is because of your arrogance.

Nigerians may be cocky, but not arrogant. And as you must have noted in this forum, we're really self-critical. We understand our strength, weaknesses and excesses. South Africans on the other hand behave like a mob. That is only explanation I see for how you can extra-judicially ban a musician from entering your country. In Nigeria, only the government wield such power. We as commoners can't block anyone from entering our country, not because we have no reputation, but because we understand it is in the hand of the federal government, or we're just too busy with work to notice a singer 'offend' us.

IronGalaxy:
your reasoning or the lack thereof, is along the lines of this

Well, I'm not saying that white men alone built and continue to maintain South Africa as it is today. I'm saying that South Africa did not reach it current height without significant contribution of the white settlers. Do you deny this? Hope I don't have to make a case.

And let's not forget how much South Africans owe us for donation for their cause during the apartheid. Not that you ever paid back nor did we demand it back from you. But the fact that you forget how much non-South Africans have contributed to get South Africa to where it is now just shows arrogance.

These South Africans are really arrogant people, who can't see how much white men have contributed to their country's development. But go about belittling us.

But whatever, it's all good that we have them on this forum. Since what they say of Nigeria is true.

tintingz:
They can't take over Iraq, that will be violating the U.N act.



There must be an approval from a country in need of help before any foreign military troop can intervene.

You can't just bash in a country and start fighting wars in this 21st century.

Yes, you can. Look at the Syrian civil war. Look again at Iraq invasion in 2003. If you want to invade any country, all you need is backing of the global elites, and lots of propaganda to deceive the masses into acquiescence. The law is an ass.

Ofcos yes but we can't rule out some immigrants contributed to a country development.

What is it those immigrants contribute that the locals couldn't have contributed themselves? Europeans don't need foreign workers as they are developed countries, particularly not workers from developing countries like in the middle east and Africa.

The idea of western countries taking in immigrants to contribute to their economy is kind of exploitation. Those immigrants could've been better off in their native countries developing their economies.

Arabs and Isrealis are sisters, they share borders.

Not before 1948. There was mass immigration of non-Arab Jews to Palestine after the Great war. I urge you to look further into this and see the strong parallels with Europe and Muslim immigration and population today.

What you're yet to tell me is, you mean some immigrants will be fighting for territory in countries like England or U.S or France?

Absolutely.

The west were pagans till some Christian crusade groups came to that region.

OK, my bad. But we shouldn't welcome cultural encroachment of today's western culture by Muslim culture because cultural replacement has been part of human history.

Where do you read they were no mass immigrants then, it may probably be an invasion by the crusade militia.

Even if there was mass immigration then, the point is that it was wrong then as it is now. Do you think it is fair to mass immigrate Hausas from the north to the South South?

The point is culture changes, Christianity has not always be the western faith.

Your point is that since cultural changes have happened in the past, we should welcome any change happening today, regardless of the measures employed to effect such changes. This is rather an unappreciative view of culture and heritage, especially when you compare Islamic culture with the western culture of today, which is not just Christianity.

Of cos Muhammad should be criticize, I'm pro free speech.

Like I said countries that rule in favor of Muslims on free speech knew Muslims are more violence when it comes to their beliefs, they can't risk that, they need to protect their people and country.

You can remember the Danish cartoon and some other events?

If anything all of these proves the problem with mass immigration of people into a region with different ethnicity and culture. I believe you see this kind of cultural changes are not ideal. This is backward cultural shift.

The West can become an Islamic state? Well anything is possible but I think there's no chance for that in this 21st century, with the enlightenment, the increase of irreligious and Islamaphobic on Muslims in the west, it's highly not possible.

Infact from my observation, I can see Muslim countries adopting more of the western culture, I can see muslims becoming more irreligious in the nearest future, the more they have access to the internet the more the chances.

Let's Saudi approve freedom of religion, speech and expression and see people leaving that religion.

Even if an Islamic state is not formed eventually, the cost of such mass immigration will be borne by westerners in terms of dilution of their culture as well as significant degree of ethnic replacement. Compare say the culture and ethnic make up of London today vs 40 years ago.

tintingz:
And did they take over Iraq?

The point is that they shouldn't have invaded Iraq, going by the U.N. criminal act, but they did any way. If they wanted to take over they could just have done so.

Do you know the procedure before a foreign troop can enter a country?

Why? The problem is that you think the laws that govern will check against war crimes but they won't. Corrupt regimes and governments will often find their way around those laws when is suits their selfish interests.

I'm sure you know what what foreign trade and partnership is.

No nessessity for mass immigration in order to boost foreign trade and partnership.

How can that happen?

Just look up the history of Arab-Israeli conflict.

Does cultures changes or not?

Take Africa for example.

And do you think the west were originally Christians?

This is cultural replacement, not mere changing. And yes, the west were not always Christians but the west became Christians. They didn't import mass population of Christian migrants into their midst.

Most of the country that reduce free speech on Muslims or islam are doing it to maintain peace. I understand where they are coming from.

Yeah, and that is a good thing? Is it right that Muhammad should not be criticized for the sake of peace? How different is that from blasphemy laws?

So you believe the west can be Islamic state in the future?

Yes.

If you don't know this already, then you're not keeping tabs on international political and social discourse.

tintingz:
How does this still affect the society?

Someone was caught of adultery and they divorce, please what effect does it have in the society?

I mentioned the fruits of adultery - divorce, single mothers, broken homes. These things destroy the nuclear family. The nuclear family is the building block of the nation and society.

Humans are both monogamous and polygamous, which ever you choose they are natural but polygamy is more rampant, the only thing that limit some men to be monogamous is marriage, marriage is a contract between two people, if a man sleep with another woman then he has violated the contract reason there are other forms of marriages which her open marriage, polygamous marriage etc. So how is this ignorance the cause of this, when he's being natural?

You don't understand my words.
Do you think monogamy is unnatural? Some men do. And that is why they cheat.

As for you second example, there's no Ignorance there, a woman doesn't think her husband is not endowed to satisfy her, she knows because she has experienced/tested it.

Oh My God! You're one of them. You should read more on the mechanism and dynamics of sex.