₦airaland Forum

Proffdada:
I deliberately used that to expose his dumbness

Yes, actually. On second thought I think he's just foolish...

Proffdada:
some Muslims do their homework before jumping into an argument but he's a lazy internet surfer that doesn't know reality
I bet he has never seen an Ethernet cable before not to mention a router

What is most clear is he doesn't know what a Mac address is, or at least that they are hardware locked, and that's why he completely missed what you were saying...

Proffdada:
let him stick to his video games
His stupidity is amplified by his feigned lingo.. SMH
He's a Neanderthal lucky to have a smartphone that translates monkey language

D guy folly...e even make us agree....dats a miracle sha...maybe Islam is capable of true miracles

Lol at autocorrect

EzioAuditore:
Lmao! Dude! I asked you to tell me if you didn't speak English, now show me where I said all systems come with locked hard ware ip addresses? The truth is that you're backed into a corner and you're trying to put words into my mouth in order to crucify me. If you did speak English and you read my last post, I stated that when you're browsing at a certain time your IP address is intact and exists even if you cloak it to others. Now two or more devices can have the similar or same IP address when browsing from the same router, both devices will be seen as having the same ip addresses externally. Your router relays requests to the originating computer, however if you were trying to communicate directly to a computer, you would use your internal addresses. These use a custom range intended for internal use only. Network interfaces are given ip addresses by your modems, routers etc which gives the AP (access point) an IP. Now bear in mind there are two types of ip addresses, the public and private ones, public addresses you see on the Internet (try googling and Google will provide you with it). Inside of a network you usually have a private IP address setup, which do not exist on web servers and are reserved for local networks. I hope I am not overloading your brain, please keep up.

Your home network has a getaway. This means they are not supposed to be accessible from the outside world, they are meant to be inside your network. Your modem links the public internet to your network. Requests from internal network get sent on your modem which forwards them to the internet. This way only one public IP address is required for all your devices to talk to the Internet. Various tools and methods exist to trace a public IP address to a specific computer or general geographic location.

Now with your public IP address, This can be tracked when an Internet user clicks a link, goes to a website, enters a chat room or sends an email. Locating and identifying an IP address may require one to analyze email headers or utilize a third party IP address logging website. The downside of this inter-connectedness is that a logical location provided by the IP address is an open arms invitation to spammers and hackers. Being able to trace an IP address to a PC is a direct way to remove the cloak of anonymity from a computer communicating with your own. Again there are various methods to trace a public IP address to a specific computer or most commonly a general geographic location.

Now this whole discussion started with me advising people to be more careful on the Internet. Being careful meaning using Vpns and fake ip addresses, because a careless poster is susceptible to getting his ip traced, most likely to a location and not necessarily a home address, and the person can start working from there, because usually service providers won't give you the personal information of a person unless there's some sort of case against him. A person who wants to be safe must take steps to prevent his IP from being revealed. It is also important to remember that locating an IP address using online tools does not reveal the physical address of the guy on the computer. The basic tools merely tell you the location of the ISP providing the connection by using publicly available information. To go beyond that and actually nail down the guy will require the law to be in the loop.

I took time to try to explain to you because it seems in your twisted Mind you've actually deluded yourself into thinking you know something about this which you don't! A basic ethical hacking student or a person with a good knowledge about these things can at least pin down your location if not even your home address and will rip you to shreds. I suggest you go and learn more about this before you spue your stupidity! The Internet is not safe, nor is this forum anonymous or a guarantee that you're protected from danger. He said muslims were violent and that forums like these were the best places to criticize islam, and I simply warned him not to believe that because he might be naive enough to attack some pretty hardcore guys while under his delusion because he like you sounds very gullible and clueless. He might be stupid enough to even send a personal email which is like suicide in this case. And trust me mate, a determined person will easily put this together. Again, I am not threatening anyone, just trying to save your tiny hate filled minds! Friggin dweebs!

Err, and you're asking me if I speak English??

This is very simple, follow slowly abeg; you are the one who refused to accept that IPS are unlike Mac addresses. They are not hardware locked and can be assigned on the go. That was what profdadda said in his post which you foolishly contested. You now seem to be backtracking or meandering or whatever on that. I even state that you don't necessarily disagree with him, you just foolishly ramble and obfuscate and you continue to do so.

To compound on that you still continue to insist that you can trace an ip address of a packet under any circumstances? Do you or do you not with all this doublespeak? That is a LIE. In all this for instance I note a distinct lack of showing how you'll access a routers tables, how you'll get the private network address, which is obviously key. You admit you'll have to contact an ISP first? so please, you think you're going to get the required info from them? What if one were using tor, do you think you'd even get to know who the ISP were?? Vpns would just hand you the info?

Again, there is NO such thing as a unique ip address that can always be tracked. That is a lie. One can always mask appropriately if one knows what he's doing, even if you're using static, non shared and publicly available ip. There are always proxies like tor you could use, not to talk of when using dynamic shared IPS.

And you ask me to read properly? It's no surprise you're a Muslim, being this foolish and hypocritical you never stood a chance....

EzioAuditore:
Here your fellow pillock talks of masking ip addresses as a default function of all ip's, knowing how much of a lazy sod you are I'm quite sure you didn't read how his shameless exhibition started, if you did you'd understand how the idiot is going off topic. I did not say anything about ips being locked. I mentioned that devices when browsing have a unique true IP address. Which if attained by a person can easily be traced, even if you mask it to others, your true ip still exists.



As to your question about how to attain other people's ip addresses, I'm not about to explain that to a person with the intelligence of a rat. I suggest you google it or check the multiple YouTube videos dedicated to that like all other people who are actually interested in learning. Not that you can grasp it, but It will be a start.


And please if you don't speak English just let me know so I can explain it in your native language, because so far it seems the queens language eludes your understanding.

Err, yes ser genius also known as talking out of your a&& with amusing confidence, which obtainable in all instance 'true' IP are you talking about??

There is NO such thing

I already asked you if you know how dynamic ips and routing works to which you delivered a trademarked vacuous response. However, in my infinite patience I shall give you another chance to redeem yourself and a kindergarten level explanation of simplicities that impressively seem to be over your head

He never mentions it was the default my remarkably foolish friend. he mentions IP addresses are not static by default. unlike Mac addresses which are fixed and hardware locked by default, IP addreses are assigned by software a hell of a lot of the time

in fact, if you're using a PC ATM, the ip you're using was likely assigned by your os say at startup initially. When you make a request via the internet, your router will then override and assign you a new one which is what is visible to external computers not on your local network. Your router could send requests from multiple computers on your network, with no set limit (it could be millions) and use the same external facing ip for each of them. There would be NO way that you could tell which computer sent what, only the router responsible would be able to tell by looking at its tables. Dynamic ips and routing in a nutshell.

To compound on the above, various proxies can be employed intermediately which would act like routers and continue changing the ip address. Each new proxy not knowing what is on the network that sent the request. All they know is request Bleep came from router/proxy yyy.

So, how you intend to find out just who sent what, or even just how many machines are behind a particular address, is what baffles me. You can access these logs on the routers/proxies? After that, you can decipher them? Abi you intend to use some sort of miracle akin to slicing the moon in half?

As for the rest, humor me. Consider it charity. Abi you want to claim off topic now when you're the mentally challenged one who clearly claimed to be capable of the impossible, the one who raised the topic?

D guy try

Love how he showed up in his traditional like a boss

Hopefully, somehow someday he could apply his skillset here

EzioAuditore:
The plonker was not saying he could mask his ip, he was saying all ip's are that way by default. Please read his post again, and congrats btw, your stupidity is of a special case, all the time it took you to re-read that you couldn't pick up on my point. I did warn you to just shut up did i not?

Please, allow to continue making a fool of myself

Sooo, where did he state all ips are 'masked', oh great and noble and wise man? And which nigerian film deluded you into thinking all machines on a network come locked with some static IP by default??

BTW, after we're done with this, you could then proceed to tell us how you intend to get said IP address. Thanks

EzioAuditore:
Please read what you wrote again, compare it to the topic we're discussing, show the world how much of an slowpoke you are, please say it makes sense.

It really seems you've been watching too much fiction

Why, please, educate me, great ser genius.

What's the difference between a normal IP and a 'masked' IP?

How was profdada wrong when he stated he could mask his IP using a VPN (or any other standard proxy, including free ones like tor)?

How do shared ips work?

I might have other questions, but these would do for starters. Thanks

EzioAuditore:
Lmao! Now I'm really sure this bloke might truely be f*cktarded. You're mentioning normal IP addresses and you're confusing it with masked IP addresses? Did you even read what you wrote? All devices have a unique standard iP address which can be changed or rather masked by cloaking applications. It seems you're completely clueless on this topic, like I said before, you're a charlatan! So I doubt if you actually know the function you're talking about is not a standard function but rather the function of ip cloaking applications which means you're probably not using one. You my friend are as daft as a cow. FOH: before you embarrass yourself any further! Lol! And the ninny wazzock was confident enough to say he was going to school me. School me on something he has no clue about? Lol! Piss off! You in turn, just got schooled by an "illiterate". Worthless plonker!

You wrote this nonsense yet have the gall to call another 'charlatan'??

You don't seem to be disagreeing with him sef, just obfuscating and rambling. For instance any router could change the return IP of a packet, doesn't really make them 'cloacking' applications

Actually, what is wrong with you?

Weah96:
Man or life? If all you need is an empty story, like the biblical one, then any atheist will be willing to design one for you.

Man came from an adulterous relationship between two stars. A married star cheated on her husband star, and the man star got angry and slapped her into pieces. One piece became the earth. The star blood turned into people. Got it.

I have as much evidence for my story as you have for the one in your favorite holy book.

Likely you have more evidence. You can at least prove the earth did form from a star

You addressed nothing here.... Some repetition.....

Abuamam:
Slavery was a worldwide phenomenon; used to solve the problem of what to do with prisoners of war and criminals; that had nothing to do with RELIGIOUS and cultural domination ... end.

The prophet (saw) personally freed 63 slaves; his wife Aisha 67. Over 32000 slaves were freed in the interim period in the life of the companions BY THE COMPANIONS THEMSELVES. This alone shows the emphasis Islam placed on freeing slaves.

Find out more here, if you wish...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

Already dealt with, but let's finish this.

The prophet also enslaved villages wholesale. So what exactly is your point??

wiki: The Invasion of Banu Qurayza,[1] also known as the Massacre of Banu Qurayza, took place in the Dhul Qa‘dah during February and March of 627 AD (5 AH).[6]

The Banu Qurayza was besieged for 25 days until they surrendered.[1] One of Muhammad's companions decided that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment,[7][8][9][10][11] after which all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were beheaded.[2][12] According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14.[13][14] The Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600–900 being executed.[1][3] The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but state that all males were killed and 1 woman.[15] The rest of the women and children were sold in exchange for weapons and horses, according to Islamic sources.[1]

According to Ibn Kathir, Quranic verses 33:26-27 and 33:9-10 are about the attack against the Banu Qurayza.[2][16][17]

The Banu Qurayza were allied to Muhammmad and during the Battle of the Trench they lent tools to the Muslims to defend themselves in Medina, but they did not participate in any fighting. The Qurayza were deeply offended by Muhammad's recitation of revelations which strongly attacked Jews, and according to Islamic sources (such as Al-Waqidi[18]) they negotiated with the Meccans.[19] Waqidi claims that Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Norman Stillman and Watt believe such a treaty was "doubtful" to have existed, though Watt believes the Qurayza had agreed not to assist Muhammad's enemies against him.[18][20] Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable.[21] According to Mubrakpuri, Peters, Stillman, Guillaume, Inamdar and Ibn Kathir, on the day of the Meccans' withdrawal Muhammad led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. According to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel (Jibraaiyl).[1][2][7][8][9][22]

So, uncle mo first of all was critical of his allies, some jews. Allies that even actually aided him beforehand (without actually getting involved in the fighting, but not just allies in name).

Mo is up to his shenanigans with the Meccans, Meccans allegedly negotiate with aforementioned Jews.

Jews do nothing, they raise not a single arm against Mo or his followers, all that's there is accusations that they (might) have broken some (supposed) treaty they signed with Mo.

Again, not a single one of those Jews had every raised an arm against Mo or his followers, or even actually aided his enemies. In fact they had earlier aided mo himself! (For which he rewarded them with criticism).

So what does uncle Mo do?

He besieges them for near a month! Sets up a kangaroo court, well knowing what the outcome will be, and beheads all the males in the village then sells the rest of to slavery.

Do you know how many were beheaded?

600-900

Can you guess how many women and children would be left? I would wager, at least, the very same 600-900

So that's ~750 people sold into slavery in just the one incident as opposed to his releasing 63 through his life?!

He sure seems to real hate slavery.

And btw, do you know what the muslim casualty count was?

2

...........

Please, in case you missed it, here's the reason mo gave for the slaughter

wiki: According to Peters and Stillman, on the day of the Meccans' withdrawal, Muhammad led his forces against the Banu Qurayza neighborhood. According to the Muslim tradition, he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel.[7][8][9][22]

How so very convenient...


Now, once again, there is no such thing as humane slavery. That is preposterous...

I seriously do not know what's wrong with you. That you could be defending such nonsense buggles the mind. And I again remind you that this was a man that could do away with RELIGION. People's lives revolve around it, you're here mindlessly defending the indefensible as an example, yet this same man couldn't do away with slavery?? Instead, he well indulged in it, repeatedly?

Real curious.

And talk of his companions releasing 32000 slaves, even if I accepted that number and ignored the thousands they enslaved, I wonder how many of those were freed because they converted to Islam? How many had they enslaved themselves?

Abuamam:
The Muslim zakat is a religious obligation and the 3rd pillar of Islam. Non-Muslims living under Muslim rule cannot be forced to perform what is inherently an Islamic religious obligation; hence the jizya, since they enjoy the same infrastructure enjoyed by Muslims.

“… in a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; ‘If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but we do not, then it is not.’” (Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1913 p.61)

After the Muslims had captured Hims (Emesa) and taken the Jizya as agreed in the agreement signed when the Muslims entered the city, it was learnt that Roman Emperor Heraclius was advancing with a large army. Abu ‘Ubaida, may Allah be pleased with him, who was the Muslim commander on the Syrian front, ordered all the dues taken as Jizya to be returned to the people of the city. According to Baladhuri the people of the city were told,
“We are not able to defend you anymore and now you have complete authority over your matters.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)

Al-Azdi narrates the same with the following wording;
“We have returned your wealth back to you because we detest taking your wealth and then failing to protect your land. We are moving to another area and have called upon our brethren, and then we will fight our enemy. If Allah helps us defeat them we shall fulfill our covenant with you except that you yourselves do not like it then.” (Futuh al-Sham ed. William N. Lees published by Baptist Mission Culcutta, 1854 pp. 137-138)

Al-Baladhuri quotes the response of the people of Hims;
“Verily your rule and justice is dearer to us than the tyranny and oppression in which we used to live.” (Futuh al-Baldan 1/162)

This is the purpose of the jizya, in the eyes of the companions of the prophet (saw) according to the opinion of western orientalists.

Bros, zakat is not tax in the same way jizya is and you know this. It's essentially charity, that is how you even sell it to us kafiir. For one, if you don't give, nobody is going to enslave you. The same most certainly cannot be said for jizya

wiki: 1. Zakat is obligatory if a Muslim's income and net worth of assets exceeded the Nisab (excess of certain basic amount)[141]
1. Jizya is obligatory on a Dhimmi's regardless of income or wealth; no minimum (Nisab) to determine Jizya[142]

2. Zakat is only payable on income and on assets continuously owned over one lunar year that are in excess of the Nisab; to be paid on day of harvest (income)[143]
2. Jizya is payable on all assets and income, paid yearly or quarterly regardless to Nisab.[140]

3. the amount of Zakat paid was specified by Sharia[140]
3. the amount of Jizya paid was not specified by Sharia.;[50][51] by the time of the Prophet, at least one gold Dinar and 12 Dirhams; later on, these taxes were often graded into three levels with minimum rate being 20% of all estimated assets and any sales.[55] The highest rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the Islamic empire.[56]

4. Zakat is paid only by the owner of the assets himself/herself[144]
4. Jizya is paid by all able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power [145]

5. refusal and failure to pay Zakat was treated with flexibility in some sultanates, with penalty and punishment in others[146][147]
5. refusal and failure to pay Jizya by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was a capital crime, punished by his family's arrest and enslavement.[76][77] The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as houseworkers and slaves. [size=13pt]In some cases, the family could escape this punishment by converting to Islam.[/size][148]

6. Zakat should be paid seeking God's pleasure[149]
7. Jizya is paid with humiliation, servility and belittlement[150][151]

Officially paid with humiliation, servility and belittlement. Hmmmm

No 5 is particularly juicy. So, if you can't pay (the sometime 80% of income tax) they enslave you. Unless, of course, you become a muslim? lol. What was I saying earlier? And what were you saying about Islam phasing out slavery?

In fact, same wiki article continues

wiki: Critics often cite jizya as a form of discrimination, persecution and oppression in Islamic law.[152][153][154]

Supporters argue that it is fair, since all Muslims are obliged to pay Zakat. While the tax rate and nature of zakat and jizya were different, supporters often cite jizya as a form of protection money and a religious requirement against non-believers in Islam per Sharia.[155][156]

In practice, however, Timothy H. Parsons states that during the early caliphate, non-Muslims had to pay the kharaj. The sum of the jizya and kharaj taxes levied on non-Muslims were considerably larger than the zakat tax on Muslims and [size=13pt]conversion generally brought tax relief.[/size][157] Some evidence suggests that the jizya was sometimes double the Zakat; for example, the Hedaya (Guide on Mussalman Law),[158] an Islamic legal text, declared it lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee (dhimmi) as of a Mussulman (Muslim).[159]

Those critics are too kind.

At the very least, come back when the price for not paying zakat is slavery. You might then have a sliver of a case.

abuman: Yes, there is humane slavery. Again, I will point out that slavery was a solution to what to do with prisoners of war and criminals. Islam put in place rules regarding their treatment...

Let us look at the following Sayings from our Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

Narrated AbuDharr: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab, Book 41, Number 5142)"

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

I will pretend I didn't see this

abuman: The Quraysh as leaders is expediency, not obligation. Earlier on, the ansar were keen on the khilafa, before Abu bakr stepped in and prevented the fragmentation of the Muslim world by keeping the khilafa in Quraysh. It was not a religious obligation but to prevent fitna. The prophet said we should obey our ruler even if he was an ethiopian slave. Numerous rulers have been non-Qurayshi and no scholar suggested that they should not be obeyed as a matter of faith. The 12 rulers from Quraysh is a prophecy, not a statute.

I've already dealt with this as well. Your noble prophets words are up there for the record for all to see. Dunno who you think you're deceiving at this point....

I'll just repeat: the righteous white man is more righteous than the righteous black man

Heh

abuman: This is your opinion. You have to prove that the prophet (saw) really had ambitious world domination in mind when he started out to 'create' his religion. Otherwise, you are just building castles on air; you know.

No offence again, but only a retard would not convict in this case.

And this despite the fact I'm holding back as, again, time. There is a lot more folly where that came from....

abuman: As an aside, the jews in the Hijaz were active players and at no point did they 'mind their business'. While I will also remind you that it was the prophet (saw) and his companions who were first driven out of their homes and their property in Mecca seized. Getting your property back from thieves is not a crime.

Yes, see above. I'm sure those mean Jews were bullying those poor ol muslims

Abuamam:
Your idol worshipping grandfathers sold each other as slaves before the Arabs and the whites ever knew Africa existed.

Hold up. It looks to me like you mean this pejoratively. Like your grandfather's gods were not good enough?

What was I just saying about cultures enslaving you?! What is wrong with you??

A suggestion: if you're going to believe a group of fairy tales, those of your ancestors are infinitely superior to those of your slave masters... This is Stockholhm Syndrome on steroids, complete with you feeling proud of yourself.

Anyhow, moving on (and hopefully I can unsee such a sad case of mind ra.pe....), supposing they did? That somehow makes your slave masters doing it right? So it's despicable when your ancestors do it but not so when your arab mastahs do it? Shouldn't the fact that your arab mastah's indulged in it tell you something??

Abuamam:
Was that cultural domination too?

YES, (assuming if true) ser obvious.

I'm waiting for the part where you show me condoning their actions....

I'm all for cultures competing but doing this via means such as slavery...really

Abuamam:
Is your payment of tax to the government a form of subjugation and slavery?

Bros, don't try to compare this with other taxes. It most certainly is a form of subjugation and domination this case. Or please, in order to avoid more long story, do tell in your own words; what is the point of the tax? Exactly why the tax? Thanks

Abuamam:
Islam made slavery humane and phased it out, regardless of your not facing the facts. Islam is a practical way of life, not some bleeding heart utopic dream.

There's humane slavery??

I'm glad you concede slavery is acceptable under islamic law though. That's a good start.

And Islam isn't 'some sort of utopic dream'?

Wasn't uncle mo's life the perfect, read; utopian, way to live life? Isn't Islam about emulating him and what not? Or are you going to deny this?

Even the first Caliphs are regarded as 'perfect', let alone uncle mo...

Abuamam: As for 'edicts' we supposedly follow by Arab clergy, that is trash. There are more popular non-Arab mujtahids today than Arab. Many of the major past scholars thst we read, were non-Arab. So there goes that theory of yours.

I said the pope. Pope = Caliph. The final boss

islam friendly site: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The leaders are from Quraysh. The righteous among them are the leaders of the righteous, and the wicked among them are the leaders of the wicked.”
The hadîth is recoeded by al-Hâkim in his Mustadrak. It is supported by narrations in Musnad Ahmad, Sunan al-Nasâ’î al-Kubrâ, and Musannaf Ibn Abî Shaybah.

It has been graded as authentic by al-Albânî and Shu`ayb al-Arna’ût.

Sooooo, quraysh righteous are more righteous than the righteous of others? Even the evil are better at being evil than the evil from other tribes? That doesn't qualify as supremecy??

Curious. I mean, if I stated that a righteous yoruba man is superior a righteous ibo man, or the righteous oyinbo was superior to the righteous black, I wonder how you would interpret that.

At the very best, you can stretch it to mean this

islam friendly site: The Prophet (peace be upon him) meant this only for a case where there is a choice between candidates. When we want to choose a supreme leader for the Muslims, we should choose someone from Quraysh. Yet, who from Quraysh should be chosen? He should be someone who adheres to the faith. It is not just a mere question of ancestry, of being able to trace your lineage back to Quraysh as a tribe or even to the Prophet (peace be upon him). There is no special distinction in this without true piety. If a iniquitous man from Quraysh comes forward and says he is entitled to the office, we would not appoint him. We would say to him that the primary consideration of a leader is that he must be just.

This is just twisting poor uncle moh's words. But even at that, doesn't change the fact that quarayshi are considered intrinsically superior to others by default. The ideal caliph would be quarayshi, no? Your own perfect mo declared this, abi you wish to deny this as well?

So when good ser Baghdadi, King of ISIS, claims he's the Caliph, a good and proper and pious Quaraysh, chosen by clergy and certainly more pious than you dudes thst seek to dilute uncle mos message, then well, his words have real weight.

More islam sites

http://www.deoband.org/2010/07/general/politics/is-it-a-condition-for-the-imam-to-be-from-quraysh/
http://islamqa.info/en/146316
http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/shariah-based-systems/imamate-and-political-systems/169073-is-it-necessary-for-caliphs-to-be-from-quraish.html?Political_Systems=

more islamic sites: Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said; and in the narration of Zuhayr: the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) conveyed; and ‘Amr said: narrating:

“People are subservient to Quraysh in this matter: the Muslims among them [being subservient] to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among them [being subservient] to the disbelievers among them.” (Sahih Muslim)

.....

His statement “People are subservient to Quraysh in this matter”: the ‘ulama adduced this as proof that Qurayshi [lineage] is a condition for the Imam, to the extent that some of them claimed ijma’ (consensus) on this.

I especially like this dude

muslim apologist: "It is not required for Muslims to have a caliph always from the tribe of Quraish, or even from the Arabs. Islam is not a tribal or racist religion; it is a religion for all people and for all times."

Look at that bolded word.

Looks like he's omitting a little something something. Like the fact that not always, mostly for 'practical' reasons, but certainly ideally.

Let's not forget the 12 successors, mind

wiki: The Prophet Muhammad said:

"Islam shall neither pass away nor be deviated while there are my 12 Caliphs/Khalifahs (successors) from my nation in it, all of them will be from Quraysh. When the last of them passes away, the Hour will be established and the earth will be destroyed (swallowed) with all its inhabitants."

So, 12 prophecized Caliphs, all Quraysh... Plus endtimez, Islam style....

Abuamam:
There is no ideology that does not have adherents who percieve it to be the ultimate panacea... be it democracy, or communism or capitalism. Note that I mention no religion here. Ultimately, the intention is the betterment of mankind; not some evil world domination out of some cheap James Bond movie. Islam is not a corporate entity to 'profit' from its adherents. If you say there are beneficiaries from Islam, I ask you who are they? The Arabs? Their wealth is due to oil. How much is the jizya contributing to their economy? The clergy? We have none. So who benefits exactly?

Our reward is the hereafter. Simple. We have no plans for world domination. In the Quran, God says that if He wished, He could have made everyone follow Him in obedience. We know that everyone carries his/her burdens on the Day of Judgement...so if anyone likes he may heed and if not he can reject; we are indifferent. We don't knock on any doors or stand on street corners looking for converts.

This here is mostly another bald faced lie, or you simply do not know your religion.

Koran Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55:
Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that - then those are the defiantly disobedient.

Also, hint; like I've already intimated, your very actions betray you. The slavery of nonmuslims, taxing, barring from marriages, apostacy laws - all geared towards domination. And, once again, your oga mo is the benchmark. Abi you forget his wars of conquest? Raiding caravans and killing jews that were simply minding their business? You wonder how 'practical' islam will attain the succession to authority? lol

There's a lot more, but time abeg. I dunno why I have to teach y'all about your very own religion. Really...

Abuamam:
Just trying to be nasty are we? Truth notwhitstanding.

Islam did not start off the slave trade. It rather put in many rules that phased it out... prohibition on making a slave out of a free person, making slave emancipation obligatory under many conditions etc.

Sure, Arabs were involved in the slave trade, but would not take Muslims as slaves, only pagans/ idol worshippers; so it destroys your thesis a little don't you think? That the mere act of converting someone to Islam, nullifies his value as a slave?

As for harping on about the jizya, it disproves your point. Conversion to Islam will immedeately cease the jizya. So how can converting people to Islam bring gain through the jizya?

...duuuh!

You seem to be retard.ed. This is fact, not insult mind you, as all this exactly proves my point, so I still wonder what you're on about. And what I post is no theory but fact as well, though you may be confused.

Phasing out slavery? Again, uncle mo well indulged and endorsed it. I'm not sure what you intend to get away with here. The fact that Arabs were also worshipping other gods before uncle mo put a stop to it alone should tell you something. One would imagine that if he could do away with something as ingrained as religion to a culture, he surely could have done similarly to slavery, no? But let's not even go there as, like I've already stated, he well indulged in it, and this is well known, therefore it is part of Islam. Simple. Unless, of course, you bandy about your own version of Islam which states that mo wasn't the perfectestest model human who could do no wrong. In which case, bros, you're no Muslim.

Your mentioning their not taking Muslims as slaves is why I wonder if you're retarded or not, as that's exactly my point. Either join us or be enslaved. If you join, tell me how my edicts and what not, edicts I again remind you are to be decreed by not just an Arab, but one from moh's own tribe, do not qualify as subjucating you? And I'm sure subjugation does not lead to exploitation of resources. History, the acts of your very own Arab mastahs included, does not show that.

If they refuse to become slaves, ie mentally especially by becoming Muslim drones, they can then become actual slaves. In which case they now gain access to human resources more directly. So, again, one wonders what you're on about.

Same with the tax, all a way to enslave other cultures and gain superiority. This goal is not even concealed per se; or are you denying that a goal of Islam is world domination?? Establishing the world wide caliphate?? You sure you Muslim so?

The marriage laws (men allowed to marry females from other religions but the reverse barred due to the perception that women are more easily influenced and tamed and 'weak'), the apostacy laws, all to seek domination.

So, Oga, abeg what are you on about?

Abuamam:
If there is one religion that does not profit from undeserved resources, it is Islam. Rather it strives to give back to the poor. There is no clergy in Islam to exploit the laity... unlike one other religion that I know.

What in the world are you on about? Are you saying cultural supremecy doesn't lead to other gains, or that arabs didn't (and currently do not) seek to exploit this? You could have fooled me, considering incidences like the slave trade, which your brave and noble prophet well partook in. If that isn't access to undeserved resources I wonder what is. Or the taxing of non-muslims, I wonder what that qualifies as? And the clergy don't support this?

All the political might, with Muslims mandated to follow their version of the pope who happens to be not just an Arab, but an Arab from uncle mo's very own tribe (inb4 shias and the rest, even if they tried to break away from that nonsense they didn't get very far)

In 9ja, anyone could name an Ibo god, a Yoruba one. Hausa? Not so much. Or are you saying we had non before our Arab mastahs arrived? Curious. Even pure hausa names are harder to find than the rest, with northeners proudly naming their kids after slaving, rapacious warlords. Incapable of making the simplest decisions on their own, looking towards Arab mastahs for answers to everything. Said arab-led world even wants to rewrite the un charter to fit their needs, or form their own splinter group.

But no, Arab domination was in no way aided and actively encouraged by Islam. You're rice

DProDG:
Lalalalala! God iz rill! Evilushon izelai!

Wia r d tranzishonal fossils? Blablablah!

Can u proof diariz no God! Wateva!

Succinctly put.

I'll add that the above is true because my storybook says so!

Op, the hipocrisy.... Where to begin.

That in no way depicts the current scenario, or at least not in the way you imagine. We sane folk are the ones that would, for instance, claim man evolved. We'll go through the trouble of showing you how even. You then shout lalalalala and NO! simply because you want to feel special.

Your claims on the other hand are completely baseless, yet you want to portray yourself as standing with reason?

Baby one would claim our feet exist to be used as paddles by pink elephants and you expect baby two to just swallow it? Lol

Baby two would be the one to point out our feet have a more practical function, just as we point out vestigials have (or had) a practical use, instead of
'Lol God put them there to troll us'. Baby two would listen to the outside and surmise there very likely is life out there. Nothing special about us. Just as the scientific world is looking for life elsewhere, listening to the stars and actively sending spacecraft elsewhere.

Baby one would claim we were special custom made and all this, this unimaginably large universe, was put up just for special us just because. And we are the only ones here because well, it requires magic to create us, and God's magic is just for special us

One could go on and on

I hope that clears up your confusion.

GooseBaba:
Ideas i was had as a mugu for bible god and his teachings..... Hmmm the thing plentiful...

I remember one time I was buying a used car from a car dealer. When i cranked the engine it rattled and stopped. Instead of walking away, I asked bible god for directions, then I remembered that the name of the sales rep was moses, this was the sign i was looking for. But that sounds i heard from the engine still tugs on my memory, then came the manager whose name was Paul... That was it...! I totally ignored all evidence of a faulty vehicle and went by faith because bible god has sent his angels to my rescue. I came to the right dealership and this was the right vehicle the Lord wants me to have, i went ahead and signed the contract.

Two hours later while driving, steam started pouring out from the engine.. I prayed to bind the leak To no avail. So I went back to moses and paul.. And they clearly told me, you signed the contract you should have done your due diligence. When I invoked god, they simply referred me to the fine print of the contract. I Took it to a mechanic the price to fix the problem was close to 30% of what I owe on the vehicle..

So what did I do. I said bible god was testing my faith. So I fasted and prayed. Nothing happened.. I started reading meaning into the sign of moses and paul... Long story short, I came out of pocket to pay for it, and I thanked bible god for giving me the resources to pay it. Never minding that I was in debt.

The moral of this story, you are responsible for your gain or loss... Bible god no send you.. You take all the blame and give him all the glory/praises. You make excuses on his behalf while holding yourself accountable if you are sincere. If you're not you blame lucifer or people from your village.

But the most annoying part is the burden one carries while waiting for bible god to fix a problem. You take what you are capable of doing and give it to an abstract.

You could start your own religion with testimonies like this one

Solo8:
Ok. I'll fit in then.

Atr, deist, pasta lovers, all welcome here.

Minor disagreements but meh. No one shoving beliefs down others' throats

Those pesky judextians, they should find their hell fire and then DIE

ihedinobi2:
Wiegraf, my man, long time! How body nau?

Is goot, is goot brah. And you?

Your aniki anony, u still in touch with him?

Solo8:
New member here.
Is this a non-religious thread or non-Christian thread?

Non xtianity and Islam (as muslims have their own section sef, let alone chat thread)

Most of the regulars are nonreligious though, so it might ostensibly seem nonreligious

Most would debate judeoxtians anywhere anyways, so even at that

DProDG:
This is the epitome of illogical and dishonest.

Fyi, you're 'debating' one that freely admits to obfuscating when things go wrong. One quite strong in the ways of dissonance.

As for Ihe, well.. At least he's a good sport

I do enjoy uyis tantrums though

Whatever your storybook tells you, remember it's just that; your religious beliefs.

Do not force it down the rest of us unless you have damn good reasons

Oklander:
You don't believe in somebody, why insult the sense of those that do? why organise a program about him? isn't that just to provoke people? now, why would a sane person just wake up to do that, and we say we want peace… smh

Perhaps because we aren't slaves

Not to mention, we're armed with consciences

This farce went on long enough. Regardless, an evangelicsl xtian cosmologist on kalam

www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/03/20/guest-post-don-page-on-god-and-cosmology/

Xtian doc: In view of these beliefs of mine, I am not convinced that most philosophical arguments for the existence of God are very persuasive. In particular, I am highly skeptical of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I shall quote here from one of your slides, Bill:

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause
which brought the universe into existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause which brought the
universe into existence.


I do not believe that the first premise is metaphysically necessary, and I am also not at all sure that our universe had a beginning. (I do believe that the first premise is true in the actual world, since I do believe that God exists as a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence, but I do not see that this premise is true in all logically possible worlds.)

I agree with you, Sean, that we learn our ideas of causation from the lawfulness of nature and from the directionality of the second law of thermodynamics that lead to the commonsense view that causes precede their effects (or occur at the same time, if Bill insists). But then we have learned that the laws of physics are CPT invariant (essentially the same in each direction of time), so in a fundamental sense the future determines the past just as much as the past determines the future. I agree that just from our experience of the one-way causation we observe within the universe, which is just a merely effective description and not fundamental, we cannot logically derive the conclusion that the entire universe has a cause, since the effective unidirectional causation we commonly experience is something just within the universe and need not be extrapolated to a putative cause for the universe as a whole.

However, since to me the totality of data, including the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is most simply explained by postulating that there is a God who is the Creator of the universe, I do believe by faith that God is indeed the cause of the universe (and indeed the ultimate Cause and Determiner of everything concrete, that is, everything not logically necessary, other than Himself—and I do believe, like Richard Swinburne, that God is concrete and not logically necessary, the ultimate brute fact). I have a hunch that God created a universe with apparent unidirectional causation in order to give His creatures some dim picture of the true causation that He has in relation to the universe He has created. But I do not see any metaphysical necessity in this.

So, even as the man still clearly suffers from some affliction, claiming there's historical evidence for the ressurection (let alone the life) of Jesus, this despite his also admitting his beliefs revolve around faith, he's still extra clear there's absolutely no reason to accept kalam's premises. Too much experience in the field overrides his irrational leanings it seems.

Some other folk though, they love to sit around on their armchairs and claim they've got solutions to questions they can't possibly have answers to...