Muslim Youth Stone Christian Female Student To Death And Set Her Body Ablaze

Nigeria Political Map Political map of Nigeria with capital Abuja, national borders, most important cities, rivers and lakes. Vector illustration with English labeling and scaling. nigeria stock illustrations

No end to violence in Nigeria. Boko Haram terrorists are still on rampage in a country adjudged as among the poverty capitals in the world by the Global Poverty Index. The terrorists were active in two Nigerian states in the Northeast, Borno and Yobe until 2015. Today, all the 12 states in the Northeast and Northwest of the country are being overrun by the terrorists, with a former Army General, Muhammadu Buhari as President from 2015.

Government buildings in Abuja, Nigeria. The National Assembly building in background. nigeria stock pictures, royalty-free photos & images

On Thursday, students of the Shehu Shagari College of Education, Sokoto in the Northwest of the country, mobbed a fellow female Christian student Deborah Yakubu on allegation of blasphemy and stoned her to death and set her corpse ablaze. Those same students who carried out the barbaric act, recorded it and published the material on social media where it went viral.

ECOWAS picks Buhari to lead mission against Covid-19 | News Snow

Men of the Nigeria Police picked up some of the perpetrators of the act for investigations following the directive of the Sokoto state government and the Sokoto Sultanate Council.

However, on Saturday, Muslim youth in their numbers trouped to the streets to demand the release of the arrested students. In the course of their protest, they attacked Christian churches and looted and torched the business shops and premises of the mostly Igbo speaking Christians. While their affront to law and order is being condemned, many Islamic clerics in Sokoto kept supporting the youth through preaching and in the process imputing the alleging the late student’s blasphemy to the influence of a Catholic Bishop. By the way, the late Deborah was a member of the ECWA Church, not Catholic Church.

Another Islamic scholar, Sanusi Lafiagi said the mob action of the Sokoto Muslim youth was unjustifiable as they have no right in Islamic law to condemn and kill anybody for blasphemy or any other perceived crime. Full Text of his argument is below:

“Blasphemy and Miss Deborah Samuel: An unpopular opinion

My name is Sanusi Lafiagi and I’m a Muslim. I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh and that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is His Messenger. I affirm the absolute dignity and honour of our leader, Muhammad ﷺ and condemn in totality any disrespect or insult to his person.

Having said that, I’ve listened a dozen times to the viral audio of late Miss Deborah Samuel, a 200L student of Shehu Shagari College of Education, Sokoto, who was murdered in cold blood and set alight by fellow students on allegations of blaspheming the noble Prophet ﷺ. However, as an academic and researcher in Islamic studies, a fundamentalist Muslim, rational human being, and more importantly, father, I’m inclined to ask a few questions. The circumstances of her grue*some and barbaric m*rder have actually left a whole lot of questions.

  1. Did she really, knowingly and intentionally insult the Prophet ﷺ? The viral audio indicated that she was reacting to the action of those who spam the class WhatsApp group with unnecessary messages that are outside the objectives of the group. Some of us do this when people share messages in groups specifically created to serve a purpose. In the context of her reaction to such unwarranted items being shared, can one adjudge her intention to be a deliberate act?
  2. Her introductory words were, “ba(bu) abunda zai faru da mu” (nothing will happen to us). I’m inclined to assume that Miss Deborah was reacting to a threat of attack by a section of her colleagues. Could it be that someone threatened her for condemning what was being shared in the group? By sharing only her reactionary voice note, is someone hiding something? Actions and reactions, says Isaac Newton, are equal and opposite. What was said to Miss Deborah to warrant her rebuffing the threat and saying, “no evil shall befall us? Under this circumstance, can she accused of deliberately insulting the Prophet ﷺ?
  3. Her reaction is also likely to have been triggered not by someone simply saying, “we are sharing quotes from the Prophet ﷺ” but probably by an insult to her faith. We know how charged the average northerner becomes when a non-Muslim condemns sharing messages with verses of the Qur’ān or texts of the Hadīth. Could it be that someone denigrated her faith and she retorted with her outburst? Or did anyone ridicule her and she overreacted? There’s a possibility that whoever Miss Deborah was reacting to had passed an insult on her, which aggravated her anger. Again, we need details of what was exchanged prior to her comments!
  4. Do her statements, “manzon Allāh din me, an zo ana min bura uba” constitute an insult to the Prophet ﷺ, let alone being a blasphemy in such a context? Before this, she had referred to the unnecessary things being shared in the group as “abubuwan banza” (rubbish things), which, irrespective of its contents are “rubbishes” in the context of the group’s objectives and discusses. I’ve spoken to quite a few of my northern friends and we seem to agree on her comments being a rebuff and retort of spamming of the group and whatever threats or insults that were hurled at her prior to her reaction rather than an insult to the Prophet ﷺ!
  5. Assuming that her statements interpret as insult to the Prophet ﷺ, is every word of insult to the Prophet ﷺirrespective of gravity considered as blasphemous and deserving of the death penalty? Do scholars of Islām categorize all insulting words against the Prophet ﷺ under the same heading? Do they all carry equal punishment? What constitutes blasphemy under the Sharī’ah? This is a serious question for Muslim law practitioners and judges.

These are a few of the questions that have preoccupied since yesterday and I sincerely hope that someone is able to answer them satisfactorily.

Once again, I affirm that the honour of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is SACROSANCT and must be protected.

I affirm that the Sharī’ah does NOT condone mob action against anyone.

I affirm that human life is SACRED and NO individual has the right to take it unjustly.

I affirm that in the case of established blasphemy against the Prophet ﷺ, only a judge can convict and execute the culprit.

Sanusi Lafiagi”

WHO Chief Accused By Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Of Aiding Genocide: Was This News Buried?

WHO Chief Accused By Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Of Aiding Genocide: Was This News Buried?

In0, as the first year of December 202 the COVID-19 pandemic drew towards a close, families across the world were preparing to spend the coming holiday season in lockdown. Weary from being fed a constant diet of coronavirus fear stories by the mainstream media, many were no doubt looking forward to a few days spent well away from the latest news headlines. But as any media mogul knows, a distracted population can often present the ideal opportunity for troublesome news stories to be quietly buried. The accusation by Nobel peace prize nominee David Steinman, in December 2020, that World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus had allegedly aided genocide in his native Ethiopia, would appear to be an example of this.

An American economist who was nominated for the 2019 Nobel peace prize, Steinman has accused Tedros of being a “crucial decision maker” who directed the actions of Ethiopia’s security forces between 2013 and 2015. According to Steinman, Tedros was one of three officials in charge of the country’s security services at that time, when the widespread killing, arbitrary detention, and torture of Ethiopians was taking place. A high-ranking Ethiopian politician, Tedros officially held the role of foreign minister during those years, having previously been the country’s health minister. 

Complaint to the International Criminal Court

In a comprehensive complaint lodged at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the beginning of December 2020, Steinman alleges that Tedros oversaw the “killing, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to, members of the Amhara, Konso, Oromo and Somali tribes with intent to destroy those tribes in whole or in part.” The complaint further states that “the four-year period in which Tedros co-led Ethiopia’s government was marked by widespread or systematic crimes against humanity by subordinates.” 

Disturbingly, Steinman specifically accuses Tedros’ subordinates of “intimidation of opposition candidates and supporters”, the “unlawful imprisonment” of children in “cruel and inhuman conditions,” the “forced sterilization of Amhara women,” and the “enforced disappearance of persons kidnapped or murdered by security or paramilitary forces.”

Given the shocking nature of the evidence he presents, Steinman requested the ICC to investigate, issue an arrest warrant for, and prosecute Tedros, as well as its Prosecutor to ask the Ethiopian government to make a referral to the ICC. Curiously, however, the mainstream media has made almost no mention of the story. Notable articles in The Times of London and the UK’s Daily Mail aside, news of Steinman’s ICC complaint has essentially been buried.

The pandemic treaty they are trying to protect

While the COVID-19 pandemic has already seen a dramatic escalation in the influence of the WHO, under the leadership of Tedros plans are being made for its powers to be ramped up still further. Behind the scenes, a so-called ‘Pandemic Treaty’ is being prepared that could legally bind the countries of the world into following the WHO’s instructions in the event of a future pandemic. Threatening the personal freedoms and bodily autonomy of the entire global population, its powers could potentially include the implementation of restrictive lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, vaccine passports, travel restrictions, and more. The treaty is currently expected to come into effect by 2024.

Viewed in this light it is easy to see why David Steinman’s complaint against Tedros has been brushed under the carpet. Were the story to gain even so much as a toehold in the mainstream media, it could fatally undermine the WHO’s credibility and in so doing derail plans for the pandemic treaty. In such a situation, the pharmaceutical industry and other corporate beneficiaries of the treaty could stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in potential profits.

Tedros of course has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Equally, however, given the serious nature of David Steinman’s accusations against him, and his role as Director-General and public face of the WHO, the people of the world have the right to be told the facts. Meantime, the continued silence of the mainstream media over this story speaks volumes.


Leadership Digital

Dedicated leaders tend to lose themselves to work. They end up frustrated, drained, and burned out.

Take the helm of your leadership journey. Don’t let others drive your life.

Life is too precious to squander it on things that don’t matter to you.

Make leadership matter. Life is too precious to squander it on things that matter to you. Image of a drain.

#1. Align definitions:

Define how you make leadership meaningful for yourself. When your definition of meaningful leadership collides with your boss’s definition:

  1. Discuss and explore options.
  2. Redefine ‘meaningful leadership’.
  3. Find a job that brings fulfillment.

#2. Include how:

The deliverables of your job aren’t negotiable:

  1. Reach the numbers.
  2. Communicate vision.
  3. Recognize achievement.
  4. Provide feedback.
  5. Challenge apathy.
  6. Expose elephants.
  7. Move the agenda forward.

You make leadership meaningful when you control how you do your job.

Open your door and your heart. Image of an open door to the ocean from the desert.

#3. 6 ways to make leadership meaningful:

  1. Create growth opportunities. How will you deliver results and grow at the same time?
  2. Shift from commander to coach. How will you help others grow and achieve results?
  3. Open your door and your heart. How will you create and strengthen relationship?
  4. Clarify purpose. How will you bring your story to work?
  5. Maximize strengths. How will you spend most of your time doing what you do best?
  6. Express values. Work you don’t value leaves you drained. How will you clarify your values?

Added resource: It’s the Manager

#4. Results when you make leadership meaningful:

You know you’re doing something meaningful when:

  1. You want to do it again.
  2. The joy of improving outweighs dissatisfaction.
  3. People are drawn to you.
  4. Feeling tired at the end of the day is fulfilling. You’re glad you did what you did.
  5. People find focus when you show up. Meaningful leadership energizes you and others to do the ‘right’ things.

You’re engaged in meaningful leadership when life is more about get-to than have-to.

Meaningful leadership brings satisfaction – even when it’s difficult – to you and value to others.

Democrats Silent as Republicans Rip Into Secret Royalty Checks to Fauci, Hundreds of NIH Scientists

By Mark Tapscott  May 12, 2022

Top Democratic leaders with oversight of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) are keeping quiet about the $350 million in secret payments to agency leaders like Dr. Anthony Fauci and hundreds of its scientists.

The Epoch Times received no responses from multiple requests to Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) for comment on a report by a non-profit government watchdog estimating that Fauci, former NIH director Francis Collins, and hundreds of NIH scientists got as much as $350 million in undisclosed royalty payments from pharmaceutical and other private firms between 2010 and 2020.

The revelations from Open the Books, which were first reported on May 9 by The Epoch Times, are based on thousands of pages of documents the group obtained from NIH in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in federal court. The suit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Open the Books.

Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.

Epoch Times Photo
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) speaks at a hearing in Washington, on June 23, 2020. (Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)
Pallone is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, while Murray is chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Their panels are the main congressional oversight tools for NIH.

A spokesman for NIH also did not respond to multiple requests from The Epoch Times for comment.

Because NIH hands out $32 billion in research grants to medical institutions and researchers annually the undisclosed royalty payments, which are usually for work on a new drug, may indicate the presence of massive and widespread conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts, both of which violate federal ethics laws and regulations.

Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years of leading the world’s largest public health agency.

Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.

Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.

Epoch Times Photo
NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins holds up a model of the coronavirus as he testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee looking into the budget estimates for the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the state of medical research, on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 26, 2021. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via AP)

Fauci received 23 royalty payments during the period, while Collins was paid 14. Clifford Lane, Fauci’s deputy, got eight payments, according to Open the Books.

While Pallone and Murray were silent on the secret NIH payments, Republicans expressed outrage at what they see as serious conflicts of interest.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told The Epoch Times, “the NIH is a dark money pit. They covered up grants for gain of function research in Wuhan, so it is no surprise that they are now refusing to release critical data regarding allegations of millions in royalty fees paid to in-house scientists like Fauci.

“If the NIH wants to keep spending taxpayer dollars, they have a responsibility to provide transparency.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “This report is disturbing and if it is true that some of our country’s top scientists have conflict of interest problems, the American people deserve to have all the answers.”

Epoch Times Photo
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asks questions during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 21, 2021. (Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images)

Similarly, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) called for an investigation, noting that, “Of course it’s a direct conflict of interest for scientists like Anthony Fauci to rake in $350 million in royalties from third-parties who benefit from federal taxpayer-funded grants.

“Anthony Fauci is a millionaire that has gotten rich off taxpayer dollars. He is a prime example of the bloated federal bureaucracy. This royalty system should be examined to ensure it isn’t making matters worse.”

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) said the latest revelations are further evidence that Fauci should be fired.

“Fauci and the NIH have repeatedly abused the trust of the American people.

“From lying about gain of function research to walking back claims about COVID-19, this latest allegation is just another nail in the coffin of the integrity of our public health system.

“Dr. Fauci should have been fired a long time ago, and that remains true today,” Carter told The Epoch Times.

Epoch Times Photo
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) is seen during a hearing in Washington in a file photograph. (Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images)

Mike Howell, a veteran congressional counsel and investigator who is now senior adviser on government relations at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times he thinks NIH could be in for trouble on the Hill in 2023 if voters return Republicans to majority control of the Senate and House in November’s mid-term elections.

“This Congress has not only failed to perform any serious oversight of the Biden administration, but is in many cases complicit in covering for them.

“When new majorities take over next over year, they will have a mandate to get to the bottom of scandals like this.”

Another Heritage expert, Douglas Badger, pointed to the need for a systematic re-examination of federal ethics statutes and an oversight investigation of the NIH royalties by Congress.

“Government scientists who are collecting royalties in connection with work they did in the course of their official duties must disclose this information to the public. The potential for conflict of interest is obvious,” Badger said.

Epoch Times Photo
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) building is seen in Washington, on July 22, 2019. (Alastair Pike/AFP via Getty Images)

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should revise its ethics guidance to require such disclosure, federal agencies should respond fully and promptly to freedom of information act requests concerning these royalties, and Congress should conduct an oversight investigation to assure that royalties paid by private companies to government scientists do not compromise the integrity of executive branch agencies.”

Badger is a senior fellow in Heritage’s Center for Health and Welfare Policy.

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, also pointed to the potential seriousness of the apparent conflicts of interest, and the need for a congressional probe.

“The obvious conflict of interest for the public health scientist recipients of the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments calls into question who they have been working for,” Manning asked.

“Congress must demand a full, non-redacted accounting of these payments along with the projects these public employees have been involved in and stakeholder interests in those projects.

Nonprofit Watchdog Uncovers $350 Million in Secret Payments to Fauci, Collins, Others at NIH

By Mark Tapscott May 10, 2022

An estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties were paid to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and hundreds of its scientists, including the agency’s recently departed director, Dr. Francis Collins, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, according to a nonprofit government watchdog.

“We estimate that up to $350 million in royalties from third parties were paid to NIH scientists during the fiscal years between 2010 and 2020,” Open the Books CEO Adam Andrzejewski told reporters in a telephone news conference on May 9.

“We draw that conclusion because, in the first five years, there has been $134 million that we have been able to quantify of top-line numbers that flowed from third-party payers, meaning pharmaceutical companies or other payers, to NIH scientists.”

The first five years, from 2010 to 2014, constitute 40 percent of the total, he said.

“We now know that there are 1,675 scientists that received payments during that period, at least one payment. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, $36 million was paid out and that is on average $21,100 per scientist,” Andrzejewski said.

“We also find that during this period, leadership at NIH was involved in receiving third-party payments. For instance, Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments.”

Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years of leading the world’s largest public health agency. Fauci is the longtime head of NIH’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. Lane is the deputy director of NIAID, under Fauci.

The top five NIH employees measured in terms of the number of royalty payments that they received while on the government payroll, according to a fact sheet published by Open the Books, include Robert Gallo, National Cancer Institute, 271 payments; Ira Pastan, National Cancer Institute, 250 payments; Mikulas Popovic, National Cancer Institute, 191 payments; Flossie Wong-Staal, National Cancer Institute, 190 payments; and Mangalasseril Sarngadharan, National Cancer Institute, 188 payments.

Only Pastan continues to be employed by NIH, according to Open the Books.

“When an NIH employee makes a discovery in their official capacity, the NIH owns the rights to any resulting patent. These patents are then licensed for commercial use to companies that could use them to bring products to market,” the fact sheet reads.

“Employees are listed as inventors on the patents and receive a share of the royalties obtained through any licensing, or ‘technology transfer,’ of their inventions. Essentially, taxpayer money funding NIH research benefits researchers employed by NIH because they are listed as patent inventors and therefore receive royalty payments from licensees.”

An NIH spokesman didn’t respond by press time to a request for comment.

Andrzejewski told reporters that the Associated Press reported extensively on the NIH royalty payments in 2005, including specific details about who got how much from which payers for what work, that the agency is denying to Open the Books in 2022.

“At that time, we knew there were 918 scientists, and each year, they were receiving approximately $9 million, on average with each scientist receiving $9,700. But today, the numbers are a lot larger with the United States still in a declared national health emergency. It’s quite obvious the stakes in health care are a lot larger,” Andrzejewski said.

He said the files Open the Books is receiving—300 pages of line-by-line data—are “heavily redacted.”

“These are not the files the AP received in 2005 where everything was disclosed—the scientist’s name, the name of the third-party payer, the amount of the royalty paid by the payer to the scientist,” Andrzejewski said. “Today, NIH is producing a heavily redacted database; we don’t know the payment amount to the scientist, and we don’t know the name of the third-party payer, all of that is being redacted.”

Federal officials are allowed to redact information from responses to FOIA requests if the release of the data would harm a firm’s commercial privilege.

The undisclosed royalty payments are inherent conflicts of interest, Andrzejewski said.

“We believe there is an unholy conflict of interest inherent at NIH,” he said. “Consider the fact that each year, NIH doles out $32 billion in grants to approximately 56,000 grantees. Now we know that over an 11-year period, there is going to be approximately $350 million flowing the other way from third-party payers, many of which receive NIH grants, and those payments are flowing back to NIH scientists and leadership.”

Fauci and Lane told AP that they agreed there was an appearance of a conflict of interest in getting the royalties, with Fauci saying that he contributed his royalties to charity. Lane didn’t do that, according to Andrzejewski.

The governing ethics financial disclosure form in the past defined the royalty payments as income recipients received from NIH, which meant the recipients weren’t required to list their payments on the form.

But Andrzejewski said NIH has refused to respond to his request for clarification on the disclosure issue.

“If they are not, none of these payments are receiving any scrutiny whatsoever and to the extent that a company making payments to either leadership or scientists, while also receiving grants … then that just on its face is a conflict of interest,” he said.

Open the Books is a Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog that uses the federal and state freedom of information laws to obtain and then post on the internet trillions of dollars in spending at all levels of government.

The nonprofit filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit seeking documentation of all payments by outside firms to NIH and/or current and former NIH employees.

NIH declined to respond to the FOIA, so Open the Books is taking the agency to court, suing it for noncompliance with the FOIA. Open the Books is represented in federal court in the case by another nonprofit government watchdog, Judicial Watch.