🩵🫧🩶☁️

Here is the funny part in all of this: it's the fact that you already have streamlined, go-to answers so rigid that they neglected the points I raised and instead addressed what you assumed I must have said and believed. So I'll start with the last one. On Sharia, I think I am fairly knowledgeable, as is required of a curious person, and I don't need any knowledge or better understanding from you, or even from scholars, to gain further clarity... albeit historical context, which in itself is funny and negates its purpose. Because why would a supposed final law that should be ever relevant need historical context? I care very little about the punishment and process of Sharia; rather, I am more concerned about its origin, the ideology behind it, its jurisdiction, its interpretation, and its application. And this is exactly why you left the content of what I said to debate things I didn't mention. I didn't mention Sharia's support for lynching or jungle justice—I never did—so I don't get the need for your explanation on due process. What I find troubling is its application and jurisdiction: for instance, where it can be used against a non-Muslim, as in the case of blasphemy which itself is ridiculous and the antithetical outlook of the entire ideology to critique, when Islam itself can be said to be a complete heresy and blasphemy of Christianity and Judaism. I talked about Islam and Sharia's position on polytheism, but you didn't say a thing about it. You ignored that for whatever good due process Sharia offers, which I don't care about. But what about Sharia's ruling on apostasy—where people cannot say they don't want to be part of the religion anymore? The fact that you have scholars debating what the law on that is or should be speaks volumes. You can see that all my engagement with Sharia is about what it does to or infringes on others' rights, not whatever it is meant to be in the life of a Muslim, because I don't care about that. But here is the alarming part for me—the part I care about: the alarming idea behind the ideology. The fact that it sees itself as the last, only true and complete law is exactly why it thinks it has a say in everyone's life, and that is exactly why its subscribers take laws into their hands and lynch people they deem to deserve capital punishment where they think Sharia can't be enacted properly. That is exactly what we get in Northern Nigeria, where people help enforce law because they think the state laws are inadequate or a stumbling obstacle to their own final and complete law. They don't lynch because that is what Sharia prescribes directly; rather, because they think Sharia law, which should be capital for such an offence, won't be allowed to dictate such matters. Again, the fact and the thinking that there exists a law for all humans, which is complete and final, is the dangerous thing here and that is entirely what Sharia is built on. Whatever due process comes from it is faulty and undermined. The hijab debate in the South West is something I don't take people seriously on—and the people making the case themselves aren't serious; they are provocateurs in many senses. On the hijab case, since that is what you want to make it about: I repeat, there is no place in the South West that prohibits Muslim women from wearing hijab based on their faith. As I have said, people who say otherwise are not to be taken seriously and are mostly provocateurs. And it tells well by your example. You didn't mention a specific case where Muslim women were prevented from wearing hijab because they are Muslims—not on the road, not in the market, not in public spaces, not in their houses—but only for school kids, where everyone regardless of faith wears a uniform, or a case of a call to the bar, where again everyone is under the same dressing rule. I am not surprised that you see everything through a religious lens, and that whatever general rule is made to accommodate everyone in society, you still find it troubling and see it as satisfying one religion or made at the expense of another. Here is the thing: for religious supremacists—especially monotheist ones—they just assume society runs on two religions, or that the main ones should dictate society, especially when they are in the majority, and care less about what concerns other people. That is not only selfish and hypocritical but dishonest and lacking in principle, because even someone like you was trying to make a case for a Muslim woman in Japanese society just now—even more ironic regarding a custom that is neither legislated nor mandated. That Muslims chose in those cases to challenge rules regarding the principle of uniforms in the court of law based on the principle of freedom of religion and expression, and won, doesn't negate the fact that they made a collective law a targeted rule. Based on such a ruling, if there is any consistency in our courts and rule of law, a son of a nudist must be allowed into school unclad, as their religion/belief permits. Unlike you, I realise laws don't fall from the air and are based on some preexisting laws, norms, or even instinct, and for that they must always be modified when due. That is why I have come to the agreement that no school uniform solves all these issues—and that is exactly what I suggested and you ignored. I personally don't want anyone's rights infringed on, and that is exactly why I think no uniform solves this: parents are able to have their kids go to school in any way they think is permissible and mandated in their religion. But what I have seen and noticed with this is that many people who push for hijabs in schools and call it discriminatory not to allow it never really care about freedom of religion and its expression; rather, they want their own religious attire certified and recognised by government as a school uniform. That in itself shows wanting government to make general rules based on a single or just major religious rule—that isn't tolerance or accommodation, but dominance and discrimination. Again, if you think wearing hijab to school is a priority to you, then ask for no uniform. When and where everyone can wear what is permissible by their religion to school, at that point it is no longer a uniform. But the thing here is, we know many minority religious groups won't be given such grace. So if the fact that some South West states would stay neutral and allow uniforms in school means discrimination against Muslim women, then those making that case are not serious. No traditionalist gets to wear their amulets to school, nor Catholics their rosary, nor Jews their kippah. Then there's always a follow-up dull response that those may not be mandatory in those religions. No, it's a dull point. Governments are not to determine which religious practices are to be exercised under religious law as to their mandatory status in such religion; individuals are to decide that. Religious freedom is to ensure that anytime they want to practise them, they have no law stopping them. Until Muslim women are being hounded or government is stopping them from accessing certain services or restricting them for wearing hijab in the South West, would I take them seriously. Anyone putting on the wrong uniform gets sent back in schools, and that a Muslim sees it as an attack on them is no one's fault; it doesn't stop their advocacy, and it won't blackmail some of us into being against such rules. And knowing these problems is why government has Islamic schools. Again, if you want to wear hijab to school, ask for no uniforms, and then you are free to wear whatever you want. But you want government to recognise hijab as part of uniforms; then whatever principle it is based on must extend to everyone else and not just Muslims alone, otherwise many of us would still continue calling it out. On a mosque being beside a refuse bin: again, this is you seeing everything through your religion and everyone against it. Can you point to five schools where that has happened? And is it a well-orchestrated plan all through the South West? I mean, Muslims even get to have hostels and mosques in some schools—I am sure you see that one as a given and not a privilege, but when the location is unfavourable, it is a deliberate assault on the religion. With such a mindset and worldview, I am not sure you will be able to survive a diverse and multi-religious society. You will always have something to be mad about and always be seeing yourself as a target based on your religion—and that drives people crazy to do harmful things or kill them untimely. On weekend days: please, what do you suggest as solutions? For most Northern states, Friday is almost a no-work day, and I don't think I have seen any of them protest Sunday and say they want to work. And if people want to make both days half-working days like Friday, I am not sure I have a problem with that. Then, if it is Saturday you want cancelled, I am all ears. What I know is these are basically non-issues for the average Nigerian, apart from people whose worldview is that their society must be built around just their own religious view and everything must conform to that. Last I checked, I have seen no government mandate for people not to work on weekends. Even more so, for almost all public or government-owned establishments or offices, they mostly have a mosque or praying grounds for Muslims—all these just to accommodate as many as possible. But again, people like you see this as a must-give and mandatory, not a nice consideration, and where they don't do enough, as deliberate, targeted discrimination—not that government has a limit to all it can carry on at once.

Nobody thinks it's Yoruba-phobic to argue that lynching people without a fair trial for petty crimes is a barbaric practice that needs to be stopped.