₦airaland Forum

Michaeltreasure:
I love this thread alot, but the level of narrative twisting to change facts here is extreme. Israel truly got a bleeding nose in this conflict but to say that Iran, who lost top military and civilian leaders, with a Mossad infested defense system, won the war should be the comedy pinnacle of the century.
Someone here was saying that Israel hid much of her casualties, meanwhile the Internet was shut down in Iran all through.
I can't imagine celebrating victory after a fight that killed the members of my team, no member of my opponent team is dead, and a ceasefire that was planned and brokered by my opponents team. That's the joke of the decade.
Few pro Iranians here have seen through the thing. Celebrating mediocrity is nonsensical. Iran needs to up their game. Their intelligence is whack. They're always in the defensive instead of in the offensive, they always wait for Israel to attack before standing up to act. They are always caught off guard. Haniyeh was killed in Tehran of all places and people here are celebrating imaginary Iranian victory.
Will Putin celebrate if Ukraine takes out his top scientists and generals right in the heart of Moscow? Sounds stupid right?

Your comment reflects a deeply skewed and reductionist interpretation of a complex geopolitical struggle. The idea that Iran’s strategic posture can be measured solely by visible casualties or cyber disruptions ignores the broader asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Wars in the modern era are not won or lost purely on the basis of body counts or flashy retaliations, but through strategic leverage, deterrence, and long-term influence.

First, the assertion that “Iran lost top military and civilian leaders” is partially true, but it omits critical context. These losses, while significant, did not cripple Iran’s command structure or operational capability. In fact, the very fact that Iran responded openly — for the first time in decades — by directly striking Israeli targets and forcing civilian evacuations demonstrates a major shift from covert deterrence to overt capability. Israel, despite its military sophistication, failed to intercept all projectiles, leading to damage in highly secured zones. That is not a trivial outcome.

Second, the claim that “no member of the opponent’s team is dead” is both speculative and misleading. Israel, historically and strategically, downplays or censors military casualties to manage public perception. Multiple intelligence and regional sources contradict the notion of zero Israeli losses. Moreover, the psychological and infrastructural damage suffered by Israel was enough to necessitate third-party mediation to halt escalation — itself an admission of vulnerability.

Third, it is false and ironic to describe Iran’s intelligence as “whack.” Iran operates across multiple theaters — from Syria to Yemen to Lebanon and Iraq — with a network of proxies that has consistently survived Israeli and Western efforts to dismantle it. The presence of Mossad operatives in Iran does not prove Iranian weakness; it proves the nature of high-stakes espionage between two hostile intelligence agencies — one of which (Mossad) is heavily Western-backed. Iran’s ability to continue state functioning and military coordination despite infiltration efforts speaks volumes about its resilience, not failure.

As for the analogy with Putin and Ukraine — the comparison falls apart under scrutiny. Iran and Israel are not engaged in a conventional war with frontlines and battalions. This is hybrid warfare, marked by cyber operations, proxy engagements, intelligence sabotage, and occasional open strikes. The fact that Iran has not collapsed under relentless sanctions, assassination campaigns, and military provocations, and still retains influence from the Mediterranean to the Gulf, indicates strategic endurance — not “celebrating mediocrity.”

Finally, it's important to remember that perception of victory is not always based on short-term headlines, but on strategic outcomes. Iran emerged from this round with increased regional credibility for responding forcefully — while Israel, for all its military pride, was forced to rely on foreign pressure to de-escalate and still faces instability on multiple fronts.

In sum, mocking Iran’s response as “the joke of the century” betrays a superficial reading of complex strategic realities. Both sides suffered, but dismissing Iran’s calculated response as inept is neither accurate nor intellectually honest.

ogaemma:
Your ignorance is very dangerous.

You are talking based on paper work.
I talk base on Experience.

You can't be more Islam than Arabs from Jordan, Qatar and Abu Dhabi who are in full support to dethroned the Extremist Jihadist regime of Iran. Or are you?
Over the years, I worked with Iranians, they are good Engineer's. We have them many in Dubai and Kuwait.
They left their country because of the so called Terrorist Supreme Leader.
So you do not know their Country more than them.
I have said it before, is a waste of time to discuss the Middle East with you.
Because you cannot understand the region more than the owner's.

The owners of the region don't like the Ayatollah's the same way almost all of them never liked Osama Bin Laden. Period.

Your so-called “experience” is nothing more than recycled bias dressed up as authority. You accuse others of ignorance while displaying the most dangerous kind — the arrogance of a man who confuses anecdotal encounters and Western-fed propaganda for deep understanding.

You say you’ve “worked with Iranians” who left their country — and from that, you think you understand an entire nation’s political, religious, and historical complexity? That’s laughable. People migrate for many reasons: economic hardship, global sanctions, professional opportunities — not just because of who leads their country. If that’s your logic, then millions fleeing U.S.-backed war zones must mean their governments were “terrorist regimes” too, right?

You claim Arabs from Qatar, UAE, and Jordan “support dethroning the Iranian regime” — as if Gulf monarchies that normalize with Zionists and fund proxy wars speak for the moral conscience of the Muslim world. Let’s be clear: being Arab doesn’t make someone more Islamic or more righteous. The Qur'an didn’t come down for race or royal bloodlines — it came down for truth and justice, which many corrupt Arab regimes have long abandoned.

In fact, the same Gulf nations you praise have turned their backs on Palestine, cheered for Israeli airstrikes, and opened their skies for Western bombers. Is that your definition of “owners of the region”? If so, then your moral compass is broken beyond repair.

You speak as if only native birth gives legitimacy to speak on Middle Eastern affairs — then by your logic, Western imperialists have no right to invade, occupy, or lecture anyone about the region either. But your hypocrisy won’t let you see that far.

You also compare the Ayatollahs to Osama bin Laden — another cheap and ignorant smear. Bin Laden was a byproduct of U.S.-Saudi intelligence collaboration. Iran, on the other hand, is a sovereign nation resisting U.S. and Israeli hegemony. Whether you like their politics or not, you can’t lump them into the same category as CIA-funded extremists.

Your problem isn’t with extremism — your problem is with any Muslim power that refuses to bow to the West. That’s why you’re fine with dictatorships in Riyadh and military rule in Egypt, but obsessively foam at the mouth about Iran.

So stop pretending you're offering “experience” — you’re offering emotion, double standards, and disinformation. You don’t speak for the region. You speak like someone parroting what pleases his Western masters.

If you can’t handle the truth, then yes — it is a waste of time debating with you. But don’t confuse that with winning an argument.

ogaemma:
Is obvious you are a Muslim.
Let me tell you, I lived many years with Muslim.
Muslim are not terrorist.
Muslim are good people and I love them.
I lived many years with core Arabs.
I have been to some of the most beautiful Mosque in the world.

What I dislike is those who are extremist, fanatics and jihadist.
I dislike them without an apology.
I have seen what Islamic extremist does physically. We have them many in Pakistan, Afghanistan, few in the old Libya and Iran.
Extremist Jihadist are peace distabilizer.
There are so many bloody and horrible things I have seen them do. Including execution of their own Brother or relative, because of one Haram or the other.
They deeply and genuinely hate anything about the West and Christian's including Circular Education.

This war is not against Iran. The people of Iran are good and receptive people.
This war is not against the Arab's, some Arab countries gave Israel support. They allowed Israel use their Air space and refuel in their facilities. At least I know of 3 Arab countries that are secretly supporting Israel.
This war is not against Muslim. We have many Muslim population in Israel.
This war is against the Extremist, Jihadist, fanatics.
The war is against those who shouting Allah Akba, whereas is false because Allah did not ask them to kill innocent people.

The war is against the spread of terror.
All Jihadist Group in the world is linked to Iran. From Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, ISWAP Al Shabab of Somalia, even Boko Haram and bandit's in the Sahel.

The present Leadership of Iran is a threat to world peace.
Iran was a beautiful and peaceful country until 1979 when the Extremist Jihadist took over Iran.

For your information, the Supreme Leader was not Elected. The Ayatollah dynasty took over Iran in a bloody revolution.
In Late 70's Iran vowed to Islamize the world. And they have been doing that through terror.

I know the middle east too well.
I lived many years with them and still with them.
I have no mercy or apology for Islamic extremist Leader's.

Your entire comment is a textbook example of someone cloaking prejudice with selective praise to appear balanced, while pushing a deeply flawed and biased narrative. You begin by saying “Muslims are good people” — yet spend the rest of your rant demonizing everything associated with Islam under the excuse of “extremism.” That’s like saying, “I love Jews, but I hate Zionists,” or “I respect Christians, but I hate the Crusaders” — all while conveniently ignoring who created, funded, and sustained many of the very groups you mention.

Let’s expose your double standard:
You casually list Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and others as “Islamic” groups — yet ignore the undeniable fact that many of these so-called jihadist groups were either created, armed, or indirectly enabled by Western intelligence agencies for geopolitical gain. ISIS was born from the ashes of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al-Qaeda grew out of the American-backed mujahideen in Afghanistan. So before blaming Iran, ask yourself: who destabilized these regions in the first place?

You claim you’ve “lived many years in the Middle East.” That only makes your ignorance more inexcusable. If you truly understood the region, you would know that Iran is not responsible for every resistance movement that refuses to bow to Western imperial interests. Labeling every form of Muslim resistance as “terrorism” is lazy, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt. By your logic, Palestinians defending their land from Israeli occupation are terrorists, while those supporting the bombing of civilians in Gaza are peacemakers.

You also conveniently glorify Arab regimes that allow Israel to bomb fellow Muslims. That only exposes your moral confusion — you applaud betrayal and occupation because it aligns with your political comfort zone.

Let’s talk about the 1979 Iranian revolution: Yes, the Shah was overthrown. But you forget — he was a Western puppet, imposed through a CIA coup in 1953 that crushed democracy in Iran. The people rose against tyranny, not for the sake of “terror,” but to regain their sovereignty. Iran didn’t “vow to Islamize the world”; that’s fear-mongering language parroting Western propaganda with zero factual basis.

And as for “executions” — don’t pretend the West is innocent. What do you call the decades of illegal wars, drone strikes, torture prisons, and civilian deaths from Libya to Afghanistan? Is that your version of “civilized warfare”? Spare us the hypocrisy.

Lastly, your empty claim that the war is “not against Muslims” but “against jihadists” is false on its face. The bombs don’t distinguish between so-called extremists and innocent Muslims. The war rhetoric, the sanctions, the invasions — they always target Muslim-majority nations. That’s not coincidence — it’s a pattern.

You say you have no mercy for “Islamic extremist leaders.” Fine — but don’t pretend you’re being objective when your silence on Western extremism, Christian militias, Zionist occupation, and war crimes screams just as loudly.

Truth doesn’t need your selective approval. And Islam will not be defined by your bias.

ogaemma:
More will still go down.
This War is not against Iran.
The Iranians are good people.
This war is against the Extremist Jihadist.
They are threat to world 🌍 peace.
There is nothing you can tell me, The Supreme Leader of Iran is a terrorist sponsor.
Ali Khamenei have links to all major jihadist group in the world.
All terrorist must end like their Big Brother's, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Hassan Nasrallah and all the lazy jihadist Hamas, Hezbollah and clueless Iranian Generals.

For your information, no virgin will be waiting for them in hell 🔥🥵

Your entire rant is nothing but brainwashed, propaganda-fueled garbage, dripping with ignorance and arrogance. You talk about “world peace” while cheering for murder, illegal invasions, and the slaughter of those who resist Western and Zionist domination. You claim “the Iranians are good people”—but then spew lies and insults against their elected leaders and defenders. Hypocrisy much?

Let’s be clear: The Supreme Leader of Iran is NOT a terrorist sponsor. He is the head of a sovereign nation that has every right to defend itself from U.S.-Israeli aggression, sanctions, sabotage, and assassinations. If defending your land, your religion, and your people from occupation and foreign tyranny makes you a “terrorist,” then your Jesus (peace be upon him), who stood against Roman oppression, would be labeled the same by people like you.

You praise the deaths of Saddam, Osama, Hassan Nasrallah, and Iranian generals—but you don’t mention the millions of innocent Muslims, children, and civilians killed in U.S. wars, drone strikes, and Israeli bombs. Why? Because you don’t care about justice—you only care about dominance.

And your mockery of Muslims and virgins in the hereafter? That’s just pathetic and exposes your lack of decency, knowledge, and spiritual depth. You mock what you don't understand, and then pretend you're speaking truth. Hell is real, but it’s waiting for the war criminals you idolize—those who drop bombs in the name of “peace” and prop up apartheid regimes with a Bible in one hand and blood on the other.

You can insult all you want—but here’s a truth you can’t erase:
The so-called “jihadists” you hate are the only ones who stood up to the Empire you kneel before. You call them lazy, yet they fought with courage while your heroes pushed buttons from air-conditioned bunkers.

So sit down and swallow this truth: the resistance will never die, and no matter how many you murder, millions more will rise.

ogaemma:
Ayatollah is still alive in his bunker because of Trump.
Trump deliberately stoped his killing.
He would have joined his Terrorist general's in hell 🔥 since last week.
When he realized that Israel already knows the exact Location of the bunker he was hiding, he smartly names 3 possible successors that will take over,if he dies.
So he should be thankful to Trump.

Your comment reeks of arrogance, ignorance, and blind loyalty to a blood-stained war criminal. First of all, Trump didn’t "spare" Ayatollah out of mercy—he held back out of fear of the consequences. He knew striking Iran’s Supreme Leader would unleash a regional inferno that the U.S. could never contain. This wasn’t “smartness”; it was cowardice disguised as strategy.

As for your delusion that Trump somehow had the "power" to decide who lives or dies, only a God-complexed fool worships a man like that. If your Christian morals have any shred of integrity left, you should know that celebrating death, war, and assassinations is satanic, not godly. And calling a murdered general—who defended his land against Western-backed terrorists—a "terrorist" just exposes your colonial mindset.

And let’s be real: If Israel really knew the Ayatollah's bunker location, they’d have acted—but they’re too scared of the fallout. Iran is not some banana republic. This isn't Gaza, where civilians are bombed without consequence. Iran fights back, and you know it.

So next time, spare us the propaganda. Trump didn’t save anyone. He simply backed off like a coward, fearing the fire he would ignite. And whether you like it or not, Ayatollah lives, and his presence still keeps warmongers like you awake at night.

ogaemma:
Your comments is filled with acidic ignorance.

So it does not deserve my time.

The coward jihadist Ali Khamenei have already named 3 successor, knowing full well that his days are numbered.
First he should be thankful to Trump who deliberately stoped his killing.
However he is already a coward hiding in bunker's.

The Crown Prince of Iran is going back home to kick those Islamic extremist cowards out.

Iran did not lose this war.
Because the war was not against Iran.
The war is against those Jihadist cowards and extremist.
They are the loser's.
They kill shouting Allah Akba,
As if the Merciful Allah sent them to kill innocent people.

All Jihadist will end up like Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Hezbollah cowards.

I will come back and remind you when the lazy jihadist Ali Khamenei is finally dethroned.

Your outburst is not only drenched in arrogance and hate, but it’s also built on a foundation of willful ignorance and colonial delusion. You speak of "jihadists" while conveniently ignoring the blood-soaked legacies of Western-backed wars, illegal invasions, drone massacres, and genocidal support for regimes that butcher civilians in the name of “freedom.”

Ayatollah Khamenei doesn't need your validation — he leads a sovereign nation that has stood firm against imperial aggression, economic terrorism, and Zionist provocation. While you cheer for warlords and puppets, Iran continues to command respect even from its enemies.

If he names successors, it’s not cowardice — it’s leadership, planning, and institutional stability. Compare that with the moral rot and hypocrisy of leaders who serve Wall Street, Tel Aviv, and arms dealers rather than their people.

Save your empty threats. We've seen bigger tyrants fall — and yet Islam remains, resilient and rising. You won’t "remind" us of anything — history already has.

ogaemma:
Is obvious you are completely clueless about Iran and the Arab Nations.

Wuliahi you don't even know anything about Iran.

Let me not waste my precious time with you.
Salam Alaikum

Your arrogance is laughable, and your ignorance is even worse. You claimed I don’t know anything about Iran, yet you couldn’t refute a single point I raised. Instead, you ran behind empty dismissals and condescension, hoping no one would notice how shallow your argument really is.

You said you “won’t waste your precious time”—how convenient. That’s what people say when they’re cornered and out of facts. You came shouting with baseless claims, got dismantled with logic, and now you're fleeing with a fake sense of superiority. Classic.

Also, don’t throw around “Salam Alaikum” like it’s a shield. If you're going to peddle propaganda and insult a sovereign Muslim nation based on Western-fed lies, at least have the backbone to stay and finish the debate. You sound more like a programmed parrot than a critical thinker.

Next time, bring evidence—not ego. Because shouting louder doesn’t make you right. It just makes your ignorance more obvious.

This is a national disgrace, not just a misstep.

How can a presidency that claims to fight corruption turn around and celebrate a man declared wanted by its own anti-corruption agency for looting N80 billion? Yahaya Bello is not just accused—he's a fugitive avoiding justice, and yet, the highest office in the land sends him birthday greetings like he's a hero. This is not governance. This is gangsterism with a presidential seal.

What message is the government sending to Nigerians? That if you steal public funds, you can still be honored as long as you're politically connected? This is a direct spit in the face of every honest citizen struggling under the weight of poverty, failed systems, and stolen futures.

Comrade Ayoyinka Oni is absolutely right—we are not a serious country when corruption is not only tolerated but openly endorsed from the very top. This action from the presidency isn’t just tone-deaf; it is a shameless validation of impunity. It proves that in Nigeria, the law is a weapon against the poor and a joke to the powerful.

Enough is enough. Nigerians must stop normalizing this nonsense. If the presidency cannot respect the basic principles of justice and accountability, it has lost the moral and political right to lead. Corruption should be punished, not applauded.

ogaemma:
Sincerely I am very bias about that Brainless Supreme Jihadist turned a coward.

Some of you guys are just being emotional and clueless with the deep truth.
I lived in the Middle East, I was also in Tehran.

Iran is a threat to not only Israel but to the world because of that man.

There is hardly no terrorist organizations that Iran do not have hands in their sponsorship, including Al Qaeda, Hamas Hezbollah ISIS, ISWAP even Boko Haram and Terrorist based in the Sahel, they all have links to Iran.

Keep pitying him, until his Suicide bomber locate you some day.

I have no mercy for that evil man.

You speak like a man drunk on propaganda, not someone who’s interested in facts. First of all, stop pretending you were ‘in Tehran’—you weren’t. That’s a cheap bluff used to sound credible. If you truly lived there, you’d know your claims are nothing but recycled talking points from Western war hawks.

Labeling Iran as the root of every terrorist group, from Al-Qaeda to Boko Haram, isn’t just ignorant—it’s lazy and desperate. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are sworn enemies of Shia Iran, and anyone with a shred of geopolitical knowledge knows that. Your entire rant collapses under basic facts.

You throw around accusations like ‘jihadist’ and ‘coward’ to sound bold, but what you’re really doing is exposing your own bias and fear. You don’t hate Iran because of terrorism—you hate it because it refuses to kneel to Western hegemony and Zionist agendas. That’s the truth you can’t stomach.

You can spew venom all you like, but it won’t erase the fact that Iran remains defiant, sovereign, and a thorn in the side of global bullies. Call that a threat if you must—but it’s better than being a puppet.

TenQ:
No sir!
It is not about arguments it was a DEBATE where FACTS are to be Traded in DEFENCE of a Position Held.

You were not willing to face the EVIDENCES I was showing you.
Instead, you wanted me to accept the Standard Islamic Narrative against the Evidences I am supplying.

You DO NOT want me to ASK you Questions relating to your Hadiths, Qur'an and Sirah. Instead of showing counter Proof or Evidence against my position, all you do is to repeat the Standard Islamic Narrative.

This is my problem with you!

No, the real problem is your intellectual laziness and circular tactics. You keep parroting the same loaded questions, not to seek truth, but to exhaust the conversation and create the illusion of superiority. That’s not a debate—it’s deflection.

You accuse me of repeating the Islamic narrative, yet you ignore every response and keep circling back to the same points you failed to prove. If you truly believed in your evidence, you wouldn’t need to repeat yourself like a broken record—you’d engage directly and consistently with my rebuttals.

TenQ:
It seems you are knowledgeable in Islam and this was why you disengaged from continuing the debate. Don't you think you need to CONFRONT the TRUTH rather than holding on to what could lead you permanently out of the presence of God?

Your help is needed with my other post about the Word for Word, Letter for Letter preservation of the Quran down to the diacritical marks.
[/i]
There was a time in my Life I had to make this same decision: the Truth Vs Sentiments
I chose the Truth!

Your assumption is misplaced. My decision to momentarily disengage was not due to inability or lack of knowledge, but because engaging further with someone who continuously shifts the goalpost and ignores consistency adds no value.

You speak of "truth" yet constantly rely on selective arguments, emotional appeals, and misrepresentations. If you were truly committed to truth, you'd hold yourself to the same standards of scrutiny you demand of others—especially regarding your own scriptures, history, and political stances.

As a Muslim, I am guided by the principle:
"Do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner—except with those who act unjustly..." (Qur’an 29:46).
I do not engage endlessly in debates that have turned into provocations rather than sincere inquiry.

You speak of a decision between “truth vs. sentiment.” I agree. But truth is not decided by personal stories or theological bravado—it is established through reason, consistency, and submission to divine guidance. For us, that guidance is the Qur’an, a Book preserved not just word-for-word, but letter-for-letter—with a divine challenge still unmatched to this day.

If you’re truly seeking truth, begin by being consistent. Truth is not afraid of questioning—but it does require honesty.

TenQ:
1. Yes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has explicitly threatened the destruction of Israel. He has vowed to "destroy" or "wipe out" Israel, describing the Israeli regime as an "abhorrent Zionist regime" that must be eliminated

https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-supreme-leader-vows-destroy-191134502.html?utm_source=perplexity&guccounter=1


Khamenei has also referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that should be eradicated.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/do-tehrans-nuclear-program-and-terror-proxies-legally-justify-israels-attack/?utm_source=perplexity

2. Israel has not even acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons (even though we all know they do). The difference is that Israel has not threatened the existence of any nation including Iran.
Isra-el fights only those who consider themselves as enemies to the existence and survival of Israel and they have done everything to normalise relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and many Arab countries. Iran is the opposite to this!

3. No!
4. The point is: has Israel threatened any neighbouring nation eradication? No! Has Saudi Arabia? No! Has Syria? No! But has Iran ? YES!
This is big problem.

If Iran can Arm Hezbollah and Houthis with hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles, do you think they wouldn't do that with Nuclear weapons if they had one?

Do you think it is safe for Israel to wait until Iran have their nuclear weapon before they take action against it?

5. It is an erroneous claim that Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. No sir.
India conducted its first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, known as "Smiling Buddha". Pakistan conducted its first nuclear tests on May 28, 1998, with five devices detonated in the Chagai district, followed by a sixth test on May 30, 1998

Both countries were simultaneously working on acquisition of nuclear weapons it is not about existential threats.

If not for ISLAMIC NARRATIVES, there should be no enemity between Israel and Iran.

Do you DENY that Iran feel that they are the LEADER of the Muslims all over the world to usher in the Al-Mahdi and the ultimate reign of Muslims at the end time.





Mr CreativeOrbit
It seems you are knowledgeable in Islam and this was why you disengaged from continuing the debate. Don't you think you need to CONFRONT the TRUTH rather than holding on to what could lead you permanently out of the presence of God?

Your help is needed with my other post about the Word for Word, Letter for Letter preservation of the Quran down to the diacritical marks.

There was a time in my Life I had to make this same decision: the Truth Vs Sentiments
I chose the Truth!

Your response is riddled with half-truths, propaganda clichés, and a glaring absence of intellectual consistency.

1. On Khamenei’s Statements

You keep parroting Western and Israeli media headlines without critical analysis. Khamenei's reference to the “Zionist regime” being a “cancerous tumor” is political, not genocidal. It targets a political ideology (Zionism), not Jews, not Israeli civilians. It is no different from Western leaders calling for the dismantling of "communist regimes" or "terrorist states"—yet you never accuse them of genocidal threats.

And let’s be clear: Khamenei also issued a religious fatwa banning nuclear weapons. Not once has Iran threatened nuclear first-strike policy. Your obsession with quotes out of context does not replace facts, treaties, and military doctrine.

If rhetorical hostility justifies preemptive war or denial of sovereign defense rights, then what do we make of Israel’s endless threats against Iran, or Netanyahu standing in front of the UN with cartoon bombs advocating for military strikes?

2. On Israel’s “Silence”

You admit Israel has nuclear weapons but then excuse it because “they don’t threaten anyone”. That is absurd. Israel’s mere possession of undeclared nuclear weapons outside any international treaty is a threat—especially when combined with decades of invasions, assassinations, apartheid policies, and UN defiance.

Israel has launched illegal wars, bombed nuclear reactors, armed rebels, and killed scientists—all without any accountability. Spare us the narrative of moral high ground. If Iran had done even half of what Israel has done militarily, the world would have turned it into rubble by now.

3. On Iran’s Alliances

Iran arming Hezbollah or the Houthis is not illegal under international law. States form alliances and defense pacts all the time. The U.S. arms Israel with billions annually. Who gave Israel the right to determine who can and cannot defend themselves in the region?

If arming allies is the benchmark, then the U.S., UK, and Israel are the greatest violators. Your selective outrage is not moral—it’s hypocritical.

4. On Pakistan and India

Your claim about Pakistan’s nuclear development being independent of India’s threat is historically laughable. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine was explicitly born out of the Indian threat after the 1971 war and India’s nuclear test in 1974. Your timeline confirms the point you tried to deny.

Pakistan repeatedly stated its deterrent is “India-specific.” That’s the textbook definition of existential motivation. So yes—Iran has the same right to strategic deterrence in the face of repeated Israeli aggression and open military threats.

5. On Islam and the Mahdi

Your desperate theological diversion at the end reveals your actual motive: not political concern, but religious antagonism.

Yes, Muslims believe in the Mahdi, just as Christians believe in the Second Coming. So what? Are you saying Christian eschatology is more “rational”? Was Bush invading Iraq and claiming he was fighting "evil" more moderate?

Stop pretending your faith tradition has no apocalyptic expectations. Iran’s belief in the Mahdi has nothing to do with nuclear policy. You’re weaponizing theology to justify modern war policy—ironically, the very thing you accuse Muslims of.

Final Word

I did not disengage because I lack answers—I disengaged from emotional sermons masquerading as debate. You preach “truth” but ignore justice. You invoke “God” but defend state-sponsored oppression. You preach “peace” but cheer assassination and war.

Truth is not what flatters your side. Truth is what stands up to scrutiny.

If you're serious about peace, then demand universal disarmament, accountability for all war crimes—including Israeli ones—and an end to Western double standards. If not, then you are not defending truth. You're just another apologist for power and hypocrisy—dressed in religion.

ogaemma:
I thought they said he is fearless 😂
All Jihadist days are numbered.
The life of all terrorist is cut short.
Same with Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and all Hezbollah cowards.

Your comment reflects more emotional bias than rational analysis.

First, taking security precautions—such as suspending electronic communications—does not contradict being fearless. Even the most courageous leaders take necessary measures to protect themselves and their nation. It is called strategic prudence, not fear. If using security protocols makes one a coward, then every world leader, including U.S. Presidents who travel with full protection and secure communications, would fall under your label.

Second, equating Iran's leadership or Hezbollah with terrorism based on political narratives is not only simplistic but ignores the broader context. Hezbollah, for example, exists as a resistance force that emerged in response to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon—recognized even by many international observers. You may disagree with their ideology, but dismissing them all as "cowards" while ignoring the occupation, invasions, and assassinations carried out by Western-backed regimes shows a double standard.

As for your reference to Saddam and Bin Laden—both were originally empowered or used by Western powers for strategic interests, only to be discarded when no longer useful. That history is well documented. Their fall was not a triumph of morality but of geopolitical manipulation.

Lastly, the phrase "all jihadist days are numbered" is an overgeneralization rooted in prejudice. Jihad, in its Islamic meaning, does not refer to terrorism—it means "struggle," often spiritual or defensive. By painting all resistance or Islamic movements with the same brush, you're promoting ignorance, not peace.

If your concern is truly with peace and justice, then you must apply your outrage consistently—not only when it serves your side. Selective morality is not righteousness. It is hypocrisy.

TenQ:
1. I believe nuclear weapons shouldn't be a monopoly of a few countries like USA, Russia, China or Israel
2. I also strongly believe that any country that has vowed to eliminate or wipeout another country based on ideological differences should be prevented from having it.

Except for North Korea, I don't know any other nuclear power nation that had vowed or threatened to erase another country with their nuclear weapons except Iran.

Israel has nuclear weapons but have they threatened any country with it? Are countries afraid of France, Britain, China or USA because they have nuclear weapons?

Pakistan is an Islamic country but they pose no existential threat to any neighbouring countries.

Is the problem of Iran because they are Shia Muslims? Even Saudi Arabia is AFRAID of Iran.

Thank you for your reply. While I appreciate your acknowledgment that nuclear weapons should not be monopolized, your reasoning regarding Iran still reflects selective judgment and overlooks key facts.

1. On the issue of threats:
There is no official Iranian state policy or declaration that explicitly vows to "wipe out" another nation using nuclear weapons. The oft-cited quote attributed to Iranian leaders about the “eradication” of Israel is regularly mistranslated or taken out of context—often referring to the Zionist regime, not to Jewish people or the State of Israel in existential terms. Iran’s official doctrine—both military and religious—prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the development and use of nuclear weapons haram (religiously forbidden).

2. On double standards and historical precedent:
You claim Iran should be denied nuclear deterrence based on its rhetoric, yet ignore Israel's concrete record:

Possession of undeclared nuclear weapons

Refusal to join the NPT

Preemptive strikes in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, etc.)

Assassinations of Iranian scientists and military officers

Occupation and illegal settlement in Palestinian territories
These are not hypothetical threats—they are actions. If we deny nuclear rights based on ideology, then these acts must also justify equal scrutiny.

3. On other nuclear powers:
The assumption that countries like the U.S., France, or Israel are inherently “safe” with nuclear weapons ignores their histories of war, invasions, regime change operations, and civilian casualties. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. (based on false claims of WMDs) caused mass death and regional instability. Are we to trust such powers solely because of their political alliances?

4. On Iran and sectarianism:
Raising the Sunni-Shia divide or Saudi fears is not a valid argument against Iran’s rights. Strategic rivalries exist among many nations—India vs. Pakistan, North vs. South Korea—yet deterrence, not denial, has preserved balance. It is not Iran’s sectarian identity that is the issue—it is the geopolitical interests of the West and Israel that resist a regional counterbalance.

5. On Pakistan:
Pakistan pursued nuclear capability due to existential threats from India. By your standard, it should have been denied nuclear weapons. Yet today, its arsenal has contributed to a fragile but lasting deterrence in South Asia. Iran seeks the same balance—not domination.

Conclusion:
A just and peaceful world order cannot be built on selective morality. If nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous, disarm everyone. If deterrence is allowed, allow it fairly. Singling out Iran on ideological grounds while excusing the illegal stockpiles and wars of others is not a path to peace—it is a formula for injustice.

Let us advocate for a nuclear-free Middle East through fairness, not fear. Iran has supported that idea. Israel has blocked it.

TenQ:
I agree except that Iran's Islamic government had vowed to wipe out the state of Israel even if it would cause them to cease as a nation?

Nuclear weapon systems along with long range missile system for their deployment is what Israel is going after

Your agreement in principle is noted, but the justification you present for denying Iran its right to a nuclear deterrent lacks consistency and fairness. If the mere suspicion or rhetoric of a government is enough to deny a sovereign state access to defensive capabilities, then the same standard must apply universally—including to Israel.

Israel has not only possessed nuclear weapons for decades but has also refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), unlike Iran, which is a signatory and has allowed inspections under the IAEA framework. Moreover, Israel has engaged in preemptive wars, assassinations of scientists, and occupation of foreign land—concrete actions, not just rhetoric.

If your concern is Iran’s alleged threat to Israel's existence, then the solution is not selective disarmament but rather establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East—a proposal historically supported by Iran but rejected by Israel.

Finally, it is dangerous to justify the monopolization of nuclear arms in the hands of one state, especially in a volatile region, based on hypothetical threats. That logic leads to a world where power, not principle, determines legitimacy. Peace and stability demand fairness—not double standards.

Each of these individuals changed history through different domains—faith, science, empire, or ideas.

Depending on the lens—religious, philosophical, technological—Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) often ranks as the most influential due to the combination of spiritual, legal, political, and civilizational transformation.

The question of whether a woman should pastor a church is indeed one that generates deep theological, cultural, and denominational debate. It is important to approach the issue with both intellectual honesty and respect for differing perspectives.

Those who support female pastors often cite examples of women in leadership roles in Scripture—such as Deborah the judge, Priscilla the teacher, and Phoebe the deaconess—as evidence that God can and does use women for significant ministry roles. They argue that spiritual gifting, not gender, should determine who leads.

On the other hand, those who oppose the idea often reference passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 or 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, which they interpret as setting boundaries for women's leadership within the church. They believe that pastoral leadership is a role ordained specifically for men, based on biblical order and apostolic instruction.

Ultimately, the answer to this question often depends on one’s theological framework, denominational stance, and interpretation of Scripture.

basilico:
Start a thread on my opinion about your lies at the appropriate section and tag me. Islam doesn't teach deceit you say.
Briefly deceit was lawfully established when a man was lured outside his home and murdered with the blessing of the messenger.
Your discussion sounds like you are proselytizing here.

You're accusing me of deceit while demanding I “start a thread” for your benefit? I’m not your secretary. Unlike you, I don’t sit around waiting to peddle recycled slander—I respond with facts and principle. You want a debate? Fine. But don’t confuse your lazy parroting of anti-Islamic propaganda with actual scholarship or courage.

Now let’s deal with your accusation:
You falsely claim Islam established deceit through an incident where a man was lured and killed “with the Prophet’s blessing.” That’s an ignorant distortion of context and history. Islamic jurisprudence does not permit deceit as a norm—it permits strategy in warfare, like every civilization in history, including the Biblical figures you probably idolize. Shall we talk about how your own scriptures describe the actions of David, Joshua, or even the so-called "divine commands" for genocide in the Old Testament?

And calling my explanation “proselytizing” while you spew Christian polemics? That’s hypocrisy wrapped in cowardice. Don’t pretend you’re a victim of dawah while you openly slander the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. If you can’t handle a Muslim defending Islam with truth and clarity, then perhaps you’re not ready for real dialogue—just childish provocation.

If you have any courage left, drop the innuendos and bring your accusations clearly—I’ll dismantle them line by line. But don’t expect me to babysit your laziness. You made the claim—defend it publicly, or retract it quietly.

basilico:
Your post falls broadly under all these terms.


Taqiyya: Taqiyya is the practice of concealing one's faith to avoid persecution, primarily associated with Shia Islam in situations of extreme danger. It is justified by Quranic verses but is often misrepresented as a general license for deception.
Kitman: Kitman involves concealing the truth through silence or omission to protect oneself or others from harm. It is a limited practice, typically used in contexts of persecution, and not a broad mandate for lying.
Tawriya: Tawriya refers to using ambiguous language to mislead while technically telling the truth, permissible in some Islamic legal contexts to achieve legitimate goals. It is bound by ethical constraints and not a general allowance for deceit.
Muruna: Muruna allows temporary flexibility in Islamic practices to blend into non-Muslim environments, often for self-preservation. It is less established in traditional scholarship and frequently exaggerated in anti-Islamic narratives


These definitions of the same words are more explanatory
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to Muslim identity (i.e whether one is a Muslim or what that means). This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda'rat.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way. This practice has a broader application than taqiyya.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others

P/S .I've insisted I don't want to derail this thread when there is a better section .

Your response is the intellectual equivalent of setting off a smoke bomb and running—dodging every historical fact and political reality I laid out, only to rant about Islamic concepts you clearly misunderstand and misuse.

Let me deal with your desperate pivot head-on.

1. Taqiyya, Kitman, Tawriya, Muruna — The Last Refuge of a Defeated Argument

When you can’t defend ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid, or war crimes, you resort to accusing Muslims of lying based on theological terms you pulled from an anti-Islam blog. That’s not just cowardly—it’s pathetic.

Taqiyya is a Shia-specific concept historically used under extreme persecution—like during inquisitions or under tyrannical regimes. I’m Sunni, not hiding, not under duress, and I don’t need to “conceal” anything. I’m stating facts plainly.

Kitman, Tawriya, and Muruna are legalistic tools discussed in ultra-specific jurisprudential contexts—not a license for deceit. If you think quoting Arabic words magically invalidates what I said, it only shows how shallow your argument is.

None of these apply to anything I said. I didn’t conceal anything—I confronted your distortions directly and dismantled them point by point.

So here’s a counter-question:

> If Muslims are always lying, why even debate them?
Unless, of course, your only way to avoid losing a factual argument is to say, “You’re lying because you’re Muslim.”

That’s not debate. That’s religious bigotry dressed in pseudo-intellectualism.

2. Still No Answers

You’ve proven my point. Not once did you:

Defend Israeli apartheid.

Explain the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians.

Justify why Israel has nuclear weapons but won’t sign the NPT.

Address how Palestinians under occupation are expected to submit to humiliation without resistance.

Acknowledge that your own scriptures were hijacked to justify colonial expansion.

Instead, you panicked and screamed “Taqiyya!”

That’s your defense? Not history, not law, not morality—but “he must be lying because he’s Muslim”?

That’s not just lazy—it’s cowardly.

3. Let Me Remind You

Islam doesn’t teach deceit. It teaches justice.
And if your religion taught you any moral clarity, you’d be standing against oppression, not alongside it while flinging Arabic terms to excuse Zionist brutality.

If you really cared about truth, you’d deal with what I wrote—not flee to a dictionary of Islamic jargon as a smokescreen.

Final Word:

You can’t handle the facts, so you attack the faith. That’s fine. I’m not here to seek approval from someone who defends apartheid while accusing the oppressed of lying.

But just know this:

Screaming “Taqiyya” won’t hide genocide.

Throwing Arabic buzzwords won’t whitewash apartheid.

Deflecting with theology won’t change the reality of occupation, siege, and stolen land.

I’ll leave you with one principle Islam teaches clearly:

> “Stand firm for justice, even if it is against yourselves or your kin.” (Qur’an 4:135)

Maybe try it sometime.

basilico:
Palestinian hatred for Israel is not merely over land. Jews and others were dhimmis , the way ISIS demanded of others living within the territories they controlled. Pogroms against Jews in Israel didn't start in 1948.
Palestinians are not interested in the land.They want the Jews out . Iran is firing missiles which can't tell who is an Israel Arab or a Palestinian. Some of the 20% in Israel are happy with Iran hitting Israel even though they may die in the process.
Israel knows exactly what the Iranians and Palestinians want from them, Outsiders like you and liberals want to mollify Israel by believing their deity ordained rights to lie about their intentions.
An example. A useless fatwa by Khamenei is quoted by the west about Iran not needing a nuclear weapon. He can tell a microphone anything he doesn't believe in. The west uses that to bludgeon Israel. Fortunately Israel kmows exactly what their enemies want

I repeat. This can war can see the first EMP ever deployed Hopefully saber heads will prevail before we get there. Pakistami ( and frankly to me they never look intelligent) have offered nuclear umbrella to Iran Incase matters go South. Every other nation could get their hands on one in a few years.
You know where to get me if you want to understand why there is turmoil in the Middle East. Apparently you either know or you are out to deceive.

Your response is riddled with historical amnesia, ideological arrogance, and tired talking points that collapse under scrutiny. So let’s dismantle your claims one by one—logically, but without sugarcoating.

1. "Jews were dhimmis like ISIS victims?"

Equating centuries of Jewish life under Islamic rule—where Jews were protected as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book)—with ISIS atrocities is not only dishonest but insulting to historical fact. Jews thrived under Muslim governance in Andalusia, Baghdad, Cairo, Istanbul, and even Ottoman Palestine—long before Israel existed. They were scholars, merchants, ministers—not victims.

ISIS, a fringe terrorist group, is universally condemned by Muslims, whereas Israel is a state actor engaging in systematic ethnic cleansing and military occupation.

False equivalence doesn't excuse modern-day apartheid.

2. "Pogroms before 1948 prove Muslim Jew-hatred?"

Pogroms happened not because Jews were Jews, but because Zionist militias were already executing colonial land grabs and ethnic cleansing before 1948. The Deir Yassin massacre, Plan Dalet, and the Nakba didn't begin after war broke out—they started the war.

And even if we assume historical grievances—how do massacres of Palestinians today become justifiable? Do children in Gaza deserve to die because of what someone did in 1929?

You don’t get to cite past conflict as a license for permanent domination.

3. "Palestinians don’t care about land—they want Jews out."

Let’s be clear: Palestinians are not fighting Jews. They are resisting a settler-colonial project. The Zionist movement wasn’t a peaceful call for coexistence—it was an explicit plan to create a Jewish-majority state by removing the native population. Ben-Gurion himself admitted it: “We must expel the Arabs and take their place.”

And yet even now, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have all made geopolitical—not religious—arguments: end the occupation, lift the siege, dismantle apartheid, and there will be no need for resistance.

4. "Iran’s fatwa is just a lie?"

That’s rich, coming from someone defending a state whose founding myths are built on biblical claims and racial exclusivity. Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a binding legal ruling (fatwa) prohibiting nuclear weapons—not for Western approval, but as a religious and ethical stance.

Meanwhile, Israel won’t even admit it has nukes, won’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and hides behind U.S. vetoes while screaming victimhood. You say Iran lies—where’s Israel’s honesty? Why won’t it open its Dimona facility to international inspection?

5. "Palestinian citizens of Israel support Iran’s bombing?"

Do you hear yourself? You’re blaming Palestinian victims of state-sanctioned racism for resenting the state that degrades them daily. These are people whose villages were erased, whose homes are demolished, whose citizenship is second-class—if they cheer when the boot slips, maybe it’s because they’re under it.

But again, this is your game: portray victims as savages so that your chosen state can keep killing without guilt.

6. "You know where to get me if you want to understand the Middle East."

Let’s be honest—you don’t understand the Middle East. You parrot colonial talking points, twist facts, and filter everything through religious bias. You can’t explain why millions still live in refugee camps, why settlements expand illegally every day, or why Israeli ministers openly call for genocide—because facing that truth would destroy your narrative.

Final Word:

The Middle East is not in turmoil because of Islam or Arabs. It is in turmoil because of:

Western-imposed borders,

military interventions,

oil-thirsty alliances,

and an apartheid regime that is allowed to defy international law with impunity.

You want to speak about peace? Then start by denouncing occupation, settler colonialism, and state terrorism—not by gaslighting the oppressed and glorifying the oppressor.

Justice is not achieved by lies, and peace is not built on supremacy.

TenQ:
The Land was given to the Children of Israel!


Let me help you with some Tafsirs to enlighten you . Interestingly, they seem to be unanimous about its relation to the end times. Allah never said that he is withdrawing the land!

Quran 17.104 Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
(And We said unto the Children of Israel after him) after his destruction: (Dwell in the land) the land of Jordan and Palestine; (but when the promise of the Hereafter) when resurrection after death; and it is also said that this means: when Jesus son of Mary descends (cometh to pass we shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.)

Quran 17.104 Jalal - Al-Jalalayn
And after him We said to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter, namely, the Hour, comes to pass, We shall bring you [gathered] in mixed company’, all together, you and them .

Quran 17.101-104 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
(thus We caused the Children of Israel to inherit them. ) (26:59). Here Allah says:
(And We said to the Children of Israel after him: "Dwell in the land, then, when the final and the last promise comes near, We shall bring you altogether as mixed crowd.'') meaning, all of you, you and your enemies. Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak said, "It means all together.''

So, you can see that the promise of Allah for the Jews to dwell in the land is till the end time!


Allah says he has given them the land and he would gather them together with their enemies at the last days!



Tafsir Quran 1.7 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir
....(Not (the way) of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray) meaning guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom you have bestowed Your grace, that is, the people of guidance, sincerity and obedience to Allah and His Messengers. They are the people who adhere to Allah's commandments and refrain from committing what He has prohibited. But, help us to avoid the path of those whom Allah is angry with, whose intentions are corrupt, who know the truth, yet deviate from it. Also, help us avoid the path of those who were led astray, who lost the true knowledge and, as a result, are wandering in misguidance, unable to find the correct path. Allah asserted that the two paths He described here are both misguided when He repeated the negation `not'. These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why `anger' descended upon the Jews, while being described as `led astray' is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from its proper resources.
This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews,
(Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60).
The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them,

(Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path) (5:77).
There are several Hadiths and reports from the Salaf on this subject. .....
(Those who have earned the anger are the Jews and those who are led astray are the Christians.)''
This Hadith was also collected by At-Tirmidhi who said that it is Hasan Gharib.
...... (The way of those upon whom you have bestowed Your grace), when He mentioned His favor. On mentioning anger, Allah said,
(Not (that) of those who earned Your anger), without mentioning the subject, although it is He Who has sent down the anger on them, just as Allah stated in another Ayah,

(Have you (O Muhammad ) not seen those (hypocrites) who take as friends a people upon whom is the wrath of Allah (i.e. Jews)) (58:14).
Also, Allah relates the misguidance of those who indulged in it, although they were justly misguided according to Allah's appointed destiny. For instance, Allah said, (He whom Allah guides, he is the rightly-guided; but he whom He sends astray, for him you will find no Wali (guiding friend) to lead him (to the right path)) (18:17)....
....... (The Jews have never envied you more than for your saying the Salam (Islamic greeting) and for saying Amin.)


I guess you can explain the Quran 7:166 , Quran 2:65, Quran 4:163–16 and Quran 5:60
Who are the Monkeys and Pigs according to the Quran?
Who were those enjoined to keep the Sabbath?

Your response reflects a selective reading of both the Qur’an and the Tafsir, mixed with the common mistake of projecting a modern political ideology onto ancient scripture. Let’s clarify the issues one by one:

1. “The Land was given to the Children of Israel!”

Yes, the Qur’an does acknowledge that the Children of Israel were granted a temporary possession of the land. But that grant was neither eternal nor unconditional. The Tafsirs you quoted—Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, and Ibn Abbas—are not saying what you're claiming.

Surah Al-Isra (17:104):

> “Dwell in the land, but when the final promise comes to pass, We will bring you forth in groups.”

The phrase “We will bring you forth” refers to the Day of Judgment, not to some political restoration or Zionist homeland. Even Ibn Kathir and Jalalayn affirm this refers to the Hereafter, not an earthly entitlement.

This verse is not a divine land deed, but part of a warning about resurrection and accountability.

And again, nowhere does the Qur’an say this land grant is forever or irrevocable. In fact, the opposite is true:

> “That land is for those who fear standing before Me and fear My punishment.”
(Qur’an 26:63)

> “If you turn away, He will replace you with another people.”
(Qur’an 47:38)

So in Islamic theology, moral conduct, not lineage, is what determines divine favor—including land stewardship.

2. “Allah never said He withdrew the land!”

Wrong again. The Qur’an explicitly says Allah removed favor from the Children of Israel when they violated His covenant:

> “But because of their breach of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard…”
(Qur’an 5:13)

> “And humiliation and misery were stamped upon them, and they drew upon themselves the wrath of Allah.”
(Qur’an 2:61)

The Qur’an is clear: divine favor is revocable. Being the "Chosen People" is not a permanent status—it is conditional on obedience. This principle applies to all nations, including Muslims.

3. Tafsir of Surah Al-Fatiha (1:7) – “Those who earned Your anger are the Jews…”

This is a traditional interpretation found in Ibn Kathir and some Hadith, yes. But again, it refers to spiritual deviation, not a blanket curse on all Jews for all time.

Islam does not teach racial hatred. Jews lived safely under Muslim rule for centuries—in Medina, Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire—unlike in Christian Europe where they were persecuted and expelled.

Let’s also be honest: you’ve conveniently left out the many verses where Allah honors the Children of Israel:

> “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you over all nations.”
(Qur’an 2:47)

The Qur’an does not demonize Jews as a whole. It critiques specific behaviors, just like it critiques Muslim hypocrisy (see Qur’an 63:1–5).

4. “Monkeys and Pigs” – Who are they in the Qur’an?

This is another often-misused polemic.

Let’s clarify:

> “When they transgressed the Sabbath, We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 7:166)

> “And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the Sabbath, and We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 2:65)

> “Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry, and made of them apes and swine and slaves of false deities…”
(Qur’an 5:60)

These verses refer to specific historical groups who committed specific violations—in this case, Sabbath-breaking—and were punished symbolically or literally as a sign. Islamic scholars disagree whether this was a literal transformation or a metaphor for moral degeneration.

But here’s the key point: The Qur’an never says all Jews are monkeys or pigs. That is a slanderous misrepresentation.

Moreover, no verse in the Qur’an equates modern Jews with those transgressors. It is dishonest to stretch these verses into some racial or political blanket judgment.

5. Your Conclusion: “Allah gave the land forever to the Jews”

This is your theological projection, not the Qur’an's position.

Islam does not affirm eternal ethnic land grants. It affirms that:

Land belongs to Allah (Qur’an 7:128),

He gives it to whomever He wills, based on righteousness, not race,

And favor can be revoked.

To use these verses and Tafsirs as support for modern-day colonization, military occupation, and ethnic displacement is to twist divine scripture for political gain.

That is not faithfulness to Allah’s word. That is distortion.

In Summary:

The land grant to the Children of Israel was conditional and historical, not eternal.

Tafsir confirms the resurrection, not political return, is what is referenced in 17:104.

Punishments in the Qur’an target specific groups, not entire races.

Islam condemns injustice and corruption, regardless of the nation or people.

The Qur’an cannot be used as a Zionist manifesto—that’s an abuse of divine revelation.

If you sincerely want to understand the Qur’an, read it in full context—not just to score political points. Truth demands honesty, not selective citation.

Let’s engage with integrity, not propaganda.

basilico:
I'll respond later but how do you deal with a people who want you dead who teach their kids to hate you. Who reward those who kill you.
How you deal with them.
I don't fall for long winded essays ignoring direct answers.
Fact is Palestinians and Iranians are genocidal. They want no peaceful coexistence. In the event of a Palestinian state Abu Mazhen ( the sponsor of 1972 Munich massacre, whose Russian PhD dissertation was on denying the Holocaust ) has stated that a Palestinian state will be judenrein.
Abu Mazhen is Mohammed Abbas, the Palestinian president.
Think this is now going deep into religious perspectives , that's why I prefer another section.

Your response is built entirely on selective outrage, historical distortion, and a refusal to engage with the root causes of conflict. Let me respond directly, without “long-winded essays”—just facts and principle.

1. “How do you deal with people who want you dead?”

You ask this as if Israel is a passive victim. In reality, Israel is the only side in this conflict with:

a fully equipped military,

nuclear weapons,

a decades-long occupation of another people’s land,

and a documented record of ethnic cleansing, blockades, and collective punishment.

Palestinians did not wake up one day and decide to “hate” anyone. They were dispossessed, displaced, and dehumanized. The occupation—not religion, not race—is the source of resistance. When you steal someone’s home and bomb their children, you don’t get to act shocked when they resist.

2. “They teach their kids to hate you.”

And what does Israel teach its children?
That Arabs are “two-legged beasts”? That Gaza must be “flattened”? That Palestinians are “terrorists” from birth?

Israeli textbooks, politicians, and settlers are filled with hate speech, genocidal rhetoric, and open calls for expulsion. Extremism exists on both sides, but only one side occupies, bombs, imprisons, and bulldozes the other daily.

3. “Palestinians and Iranians are genocidal.”

This is projection at its finest. The real genocide is the one backed by American weapons and carried out by Israeli jets—tens of thousands of civilians killed, including children, journalists, and doctors.

Iran’s support for Palestine is based on opposing occupation and apartheid—not religious hatred. If you truly oppose genocide, start by condemning those who commit it with airstrikes, siege, and illegal settlements—not those who resist it.

4. “Abbas wants a Judenrein state.”

This is another distortion. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has publicly supported a two-state solution, and has long cooperated with Israeli security forces. You’re citing a dubious mistranslation of a comment allegedly made decades ago, taken out of context.

Meanwhile, it is Israeli politicians who regularly call for wiping Gaza off the map, or transferring all Arabs out of “Greater Israel.” So if your standard for outrage is rhetoric, apply it evenly.

And for the record: Jews have always lived under Muslim rule throughout history—in Baghdad, Cairo, Cordoba, Istanbul, and yes, even Palestine—without persecution. The Zionist project is not synonymous with Judaism, and opposition to Israel’s actions is not antisemitism.

In Conclusion:

You want a direct answer? Here it is:
Justice first, peace second.
No people under occupation is obligated to love their oppressor. The way to “deal with” Palestinians is not through mass punishment or dehumanization—it’s through ending the occupation, recognizing their right to self-determination, and applying international law equally to all.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop pretending that resistance is genocide while ignoring the decades of state violence that made resistance inevitable.

basilico:
Zealots.
2011, some of Khamenei's clerical supporters, such as Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and Mesbah Yazdi, promoted the idea that Khamenei, as the Guardian Jurist, was the sole medium through which the Hidden Imam could be contacted during his occultation. They asserted that Khamenei's decisions were infallible and guided by the Hidden Imam, effectively positioning him as the Imam's representative. For instance, on July 18, 2011, Mesbah Yazdi stated that pleasing the Hidden Imam required securing Khamenei's satisfaction, and Alamol-Hoda, a Mashhad Friday prayer leader, claimed Khamenei was the only channel to the Hidden Imam. These statements were part of a campaign to bolster Khamenei's religio-political authority, but they do not indicate that Khamenei himself claimed to have directly spoken to the Hidden Imam.



Khamenei is reported to have said the 12th Imam will return in his time. If you know what means .........

That's why those Ayatollahs should never get the bomb.

Unlike you ,I know their public pronouncements are usually lies..
Kim jong Um would never fire an atomic bomb because he has everything to lose. An Ayatollah has everything to gain. Get the difference.

Your response once again reveals a shallow understanding of Islamic theology, a reliance on unverified quotes, and a deeply prejudiced assumption that Muslims—particularly Shi’a clerics—are inherently irrational or apocalyptic. Let’s break it down:

1. “Khamenei said the 12th Imam will return in his time.”

Even if such a statement was made—which is doubtful and widely disputed—you’re either deliberately misrepresenting it or don’t understand what it means. Belief in the Mahdi (a savior figure) is a theological hope, not a foreign policy doctrine. Just as Christians await the return of Jesus, Muslims believe the Mahdi will come at a time only Allah knows—not through human manipulation, war, or nuclear chaos.

The claim that Shi’a Muslims would initiate global nuclear war to “hasten the Mahdi” is a baseless myth, recycled from the same Islamophobic fearmongering that justified the war on Iraq. It is not supported by any Shi’a religious text or rational political analysis. Iran’s entire foreign policy has been pragmatic, not messianic. You’re projecting fantasies, not analyzing facts.

2. “Ayatollahs should never get the bomb.”

Let’s be clear: Iran does not have the bomb—and according to U.S., Israeli, and IAEA intelligence, has not been pursuing one since at least 2003. The entire nuclear hysteria around Iran is built on hypotheticals and double standards.

Meanwhile, Israel—armed with over 80 nuclear warheads, outside the NPT, and with a history of aggressive regional wars—is somehow exempt from scrutiny. That’s not a concern for you because your real issue isn’t proliferation—it’s Islamic autonomy.

3. “Public pronouncements are lies.”

That’s a convenient accusation when you want to dismiss diplomacy and ignore treaties. If Iranian officials lie, then why did they comply with the JCPOA (2015 nuclear deal), allow 24/7 IAEA inspections, and abide by every clause—until the U.S. violated the deal first under Trump?

What’s more, unlike North Korea, Iran has never conducted a nuclear test, never withdrawn from the NPT, and never threatened to use nuclear weapons first. You say you trust Kim Jong Un more than Ayatollahs—yet it's Iran, not North Korea, that has always kept the door open for diplomacy. Your logic is inverted.

4. “Kim has everything to lose; Ayatollahs have everything to gain.”

This is where your argument collapses under the weight of bias. Iran’s leadership governs a nation of 85 million people, a civilization over 2,500 years old, with deep cultural, scientific, and religious heritage. To claim they would annihilate it all for a messianic fantasy is not only absurd—it’s racist.

Iran’s deterrent doctrine—like Pakistan’s—is defensive, not offensive. And unlike the U.S. or Israel, it has not invaded, colonized, or nuked anyone. The Ayatollah doesn’t want destruction. He wants independence—and that, in your worldview, is the real threat.

In Conclusion:

Your fear is not based on facts. It's based on the refusal to accept that a Muslim-majority country can possess advanced capabilities and still act rationally. You’ve replaced historical memory with hysteria, and theology with propaganda.

If you oppose nuclear proliferation, then apply your outrage equally:

Condemn Israel’s secret arsenal.

Hold the U.S. accountable for Hiroshima and Iraq.

Acknowledge that Iran, despite constant threats and sanctions, has shown more restraint than any Western nuclear state.

Stop confusing faith with fanaticism, and resistance with recklessness. The Ayatollah doesn’t want to start Armageddon. He wants to prevent another colonial one. And after seeing what happened to Iraq, Libya, and Palestine, any nation that refuses to disarm unilaterally is not dangerous—it’s rational.

TenQ:
I asked
According to Allah, who was given the disputed land between the Jews and the Arabs of Gaza?

Did Allah anytime say he is withdrawing the land from the children of Israel?

Should we not defend and protect the words of Allah? Unfortunately, the consensus of your scholars is that the Jews are the Cursed ones...the Pig...the Monkeys: every name Allah did not call the Jews.

Choose between Allah and your scholars!

Your reply is built on misinterpretation, selective citation, and deliberate theological distortion. Let’s address it point by point, clearly and honestly:

1. "According to Allah, who was given the land?"

Yes, the Qur’an acknowledges that Allah granted the Children of Israel the Holy Land in the past—as a conditional trust, not an eternal entitlement. That grant was contingent on righteousness, not ethnicity. Allah explicitly states:

> “And We said to the Children of Israel after him, ‘Dwell in the land, and when the final promise comes to pass, We will bring you forth in groups.’”
(Qur’an 17:104)

This verse is not an eternal land grant. It refers to a temporary dwelling followed by judgment. More importantly, the Qur’an never grants permanent possession of any land to any group unconditionally. Instead, Allah says:

> “That land is for those who fear standing before Me and fear My punishment.”
(Qur’an 26:63)

So to answer your question directly: Allah entrusts the land to the righteous, not to a race. And if those entrusted with it become corrupt, their claim is revoked—as happened repeatedly in the Qur’an itself with earlier nations, including the Children of Israel when they broke their covenants (Qur’an 5:13).

2. "Did Allah ever say He is withdrawing the land?"

Absolutely. The Qur’an mentions several times that the Children of Israel lost divine favor due to rebellion, arrogance, and corruption:

> “So for their breaking of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard…”
(Qur’an 5:13)

> “...and they were covered with humiliation and misery, and they drew upon themselves the wrath of Allah. That was because they disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly.”
(Qur’an 2:61)

So yes, divine favor and land grants were revoked—not by arbitrary decision, but by their own betrayal of divine commands. Just as other nations were destroyed or removed for injustice, so too were they. Islam teaches that no people are above divine law, not even Muslims.

3. "Should we not defend and protect the words of Allah?"

Exactly. Which is why we don’t distort Allah’s words into political slogans to justify apartheid and military occupation. Protecting the Qur’an means understanding it in full, not cherry-picking phrases to suit a geopolitical agenda.

4. "Your scholars call Jews pigs and monkeys."

This is a common misquote rooted in propaganda. The Qur’an never calls all Jews "pigs and monkeys"—that is a lie. It refers specifically to a particular transgressing group among the Children of Israel who violated the Sabbath. The verse says:

> “When they transgressed against the command of their Lord, We said to them: ‘Be apes, despised.’”
(Qur’an 7:166)

This was a punishment for a specific sinful act, not a racial or blanket condemnation. Islam does not teach hatred of Jews as a people. In fact, Jews lived safely for centuries under Islamic governance—in Medina under the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and later in Andalusian Spain and the Ottoman Empire, especially when Christian Europe was persecuting them.

You claim we should choose between “Allah and our scholars.” That’s a false dichotomy. Our scholars derive from the Qur’an and Sunnah. What we reject is fabricated narratives and hateful propaganda being disguised as religious inquiry.

In Conclusion:

According to Islam:

Land is not an eternal entitlement to any race.

The Qur’an condemns injustice and corruption, regardless of who commits it.

Jews are not cursed as a people—only specific wrongdoers were punished for specific sins.

Misrepresenting Qur’anic verses to promote Zionist occupation is not defending the words of Allah—it is betraying them.

Your attempt to use Islamic scripture as a defense for modern-day colonization and displacement is not only theologically shallow—it is intellectually dishonest. If you're serious about honoring Allah’s words, you must uphold justice, not political convenience.

basilico:
Would be nice if you let us know where Hamas rockets are. Whether kindergarten children aspire to eliminate Israel in totality , not just getting their land. What "From the river to the sea "really means.
Any premises being used for military operations becomes a legitimate target, whether it's a high rise building with unarmed spotters on the roof passing intelligence.
Aran nations banished all their Jewry after 1948,who were settled in modern day Israel. I doubt you know that.
Those who fled British Mandate Palestine in 1947/48 should have had no problem getting settled by the fellow Arabs. Instead they became Palestinians ,got UNRWA to support them who accord them permanent refugee status including their grandchildren.
I support Israel because their enemies are genocidal.Where Mein Kampf is found in many a homestead.
The Palestinian ultimate aim is to exterminate every Jews in Israel. To do that they pretend they want to peace , what's known as Taqqiya.
How do you make peace sign people who pray for your death 5 times a day?
I understand the Palestinian mentality,you clearly song and you have fallen for their lies
Not that Israel is innocent of crimes though,Tell me how many armies you know of who fight with their own lawyers scrutinizing everything.

Your response reveals a troubling reliance on historical distortions, one-sided narratives, and reductionist tropes rather than sincere engagement with facts or international law. Let me address your points systematically:

1. “Where are the Hamas rockets?” / “From the River to the Sea”

You cite slogans and intentions while ignoring context. "From the river to the sea" is interpreted differently across the spectrum—some use it as a call for equality and the dismantling of apartheid policies, not the extermination of Jews. Conflating political slogans with genocidal intentions is intellectually dishonest and serves only to demonize an entire population.

If your concern is civilian safety, ask yourself: Where are the Israeli missiles aimed? Documented human rights reports by the UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch consistently cite Israeli strikes on homes, hospitals, and refugee camps. These are not Hamas headquarters. And the presence of a combatant does not justify obliterating entire civilian areas—international law forbids it.

2. “Military use of civilian structures makes them legitimate targets”

This is not how international humanitarian law works. Civilian infrastructure does not become fair game simply because combatants may be nearby. Proportionality and distinction are legal requirements in warfare. Bombing an entire residential tower because an unarmed “spotter” is present is neither lawful nor moral. Your argument implies collective punishment—a war crime.

3. “Arab nations expelled Jews, so Israel was justified in its actions”

You are trying to justify ethnic cleansing with unrelated injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Jews faced discrimination elsewhere, that does not legitimize the displacement and dispossession of native Palestinians. Moreover, many Arab Jews were exploited by Zionist elites and coerced into emigration as part of nation-building propaganda, a fact Israeli historians themselves have acknowledged.

4. “Palestinians should’ve been settled by Arab states”

This is a common deflection. Refugees have the right to return to their homes under international law (UN Resolution 194). Palestinians did not abandon their homes voluntarily—they were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and again in 1967. To suggest they be absorbed elsewhere is like telling a robbery victim to just move on while the thief lives in his house.

5. “Palestinians are genocidal” / “They pray for Jewish death”

This is a deeply prejudiced and offensive claim. Islamic prayer includes no such incitement. In fact, the Qur'an commands justice, even with those we disagree with:
“Do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just: that is nearer to righteousness.” (Qur'an 5:

If some individuals or fringe groups express hatred, that is not representative of the entire population or Islam. By contrast, top Israeli officials have made open calls for the destruction of Gaza and the denial of Palestinian identity—why is that not called genocidal?

6. “Taqqiya” / Accusing Muslims of deception

The invocation of taqiyya here is not only ignorant but bigoted. Taqiyya was a specific doctrine historically used by persecuted Shia minorities to conceal their faith under threat of death—it has nothing to do with Palestinians or lying in diplomacy. Throwing this term around as if all Muslims are inherently deceptive is an Islamophobic stereotype, not a serious argument.

7. “Israel uses lawyers in warfare”

This is often cited as proof of Israeli morality, but legal consultation does not absolve actions. A war crime remains a war crime, even if done with legal advice. The documented reality is that Israeli strikes have killed thousands of civilians, including women, children, and aid workers, with impunity.

In Conclusion:

You support a state that:

Holds 2 million people in an open-air prison.

Enforces an apartheid regime, as documented by major human rights organizations.

Engages in collective punishment and indiscriminate bombardment.

Yet you accuse those resisting this oppression of genocidal intent. Your moral compass seems to point only in one direction.

If you truly seek justice, apply your standards evenly. Don’t reduce Palestinians to caricatures and justify state terror under the banner of defense. Justice requires more than tribal loyalty—it requires intellectual honesty and moral consistency.

TenQ:
So, according to Allah, who was given the disputed land between the Jews and the Arabs of Gaza?

Your question assumes that the dispute over land between Jews and Arabs in Gaza has a purely theological resolution rooted in divine land grants. But this is a mischaracterization from both a historical and Islamic perspective.

In Islam, the concept of land ownership is not based on ethnic inheritance but on justice ('adl), stewardship (khilafah), and fulfillment of moral and legal responsibilities. The Qur'an does not endorse eternal political entitlement to any land based on race or lineage. Instead, land is entrusted to those who uphold justice, worship God, and do not spread corruption. Allah says:

> "The earth belongs to Allah; He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous."
(Qur’an 7:128)

This verse makes it clear that no group has a permanent, divine title deed to any land. It is not about being Jew, Arab, or otherwise—it is about moral and spiritual conduct. If any group violates justice and spreads oppression, their claim becomes void in the sight of God.

Furthermore, Islamic history records that Muslim rule over the Holy Land (including Gaza) came not through ethnic privilege but through the just governance of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), who was welcomed by many Christian and Jewish communities at the time due to the fairness of Islamic rule in contrast to previous Roman oppression.

The question also assumes that modern Israeli policies and occupation represent a continuation of biblical prophecy, which Islam categorically rejects. The Qur’an affirms that previous nations who broke their covenants with God lost their moral legitimacy:

> "And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land, and when the promise of the Hereafter comes to pass, We shall bring you forth in mixed crowds.’”
(Qur’an 17:104)

This verse does not grant an unconditional divine mandate. Rather, it is a temporary directive for a people under trial and subject to God's laws—much like other nations before them.

In conclusion, according to Islamic theology, no one has divine entitlement to land based on ethnicity. The land belongs to Allah and is a trust for those who uphold justice. The conflict in Gaza today is not about fulfilling divine prophecy but about confronting political oppression, illegal occupation, and humanitarian injustice—all of which Islam strongly condemns.

Gbadebo19:
You will just be saying rubbish like a deranged fellow. I honestly just don't have your time.

If you “don’t have my time,” then why are you still here crying in the replies like a frustrated child? You called it “rubbish” because you have no answer—just empty insults and a fragile ego hiding behind sarcasm.

It’s always the same with people like you—loud when mocking, silent when facts slap back. Iran doesn’t need your approval, and I certainly don’t need your respect. What you call “deranged” is simply a reality you can’t handle: a region waking up, resisting, and refusing to kneel.

So if my words shake you, wait until the actions follow. You haven’t seen “rubbish”—you’ve seen a warning. Ignore it at your own ignorance.

basilico:
What Iran is doing is basically a war crime.
When Elon Musk's rocket lands on the drone boat it has a CEP of 1~5 metres. When it lands on the mechazilla we are talking a CEP of~ 1 metres.
Ballistic missiles land anywhere between 500m - 2000 m. At least those mass produced ones , I would put NK and Iran the same radius. Advanced ones like the Minuteman III or Sarmat are claimed to have a CEP of ~100 metres or less.

Iran is aiming over 2000 kg warheads to Israel knowing it will land anywhere over at least a 1000m diameter. In other words they are deliberately targeting civilians. Like they have done through their proxies Hesbolla and Hamas.
When it comes to Hamas they hide in civilian areas, shooting at troops or rockets. They hide rockets in hospital mosques, kindergartens , etc. IDF sends evacuation notices, dud bombs and are required to make sure Gazans get food and medicine in the process. In Tehran IDF was shooting missiles through bedroom window of say apartment 22 and not touching the next apartment 23 in a 18 story building. Or rather IDF risked pilots in Iran to score a precise hit

Your statement is a textbook example of selective outrage, technical misdirection, and geopolitical hypocrisy masquerading as moral concern. Let’s address it point by point with clarity.

First, your reference to CEP (Circular Error Probable) is misleading. Precision in missile technology is not equivalent to moral superiority. A war crime does not become excusable simply because it was committed with a 1-meter accuracy. If anything, deliberately striking civilian infrastructure with high-precision weapons only underscores intent—making the crime more deliberate, not less. Israel’s consistent targeting of residential towers, hospitals, schools, and refugee camps with so-called "precision" weapons does not exonerate it—it indicts it.

Second, your claim that Iran’s ballistic missile use equates to deliberate targeting of civilians ignores both strategic reality and context. Iran, like any sovereign state under threat, develops missile capability primarily for deterrence—particularly against a hostile nuclear-armed state like Israel, which has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to assassinate scientists, bomb sovereign nations, and violate international law with impunity. You want to moralize about warheads while defending a state with undeclared nuclear weapons, zero NPT compliance, and a long history of collective punishment?

Third, the myth that “Hamas hides behind civilians” has been thoroughly debunked. Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories on Earth, under total siege. To claim that resistance groups “hide” among civilians is to ignore the brutal fact that in Gaza, there is no place that is not “civilian”—and it is Israel’s siege and blockade that created this reality. Regardless, international law is clear: the presence of combatants does not justify indiscriminate attacks on civilians or civilian infrastructure.

Fourth, your portrayal of the IDF as morally superior due to “precision strikes” is both disingenuous and offensive. Israeli warplanes have bombed journalists, UN shelters, ambulances, and apartment complexes. The IDF’s so-called “warnings” are often meaningless gestures when followed by large-scale destruction and high civilian casualties. Your reference to “dud bombs” and “evacuation notices” is propaganda that ignores the impossibility of escape in a besieged, closed-off strip of land with nowhere to run.

Finally, Iran and its allies—Hezbollah, Ansarullah, and others—are not engaging in random violence. They are responding to decades of occupation, apartheid, aggression, and foreign-backed terrorism. They are operating under the logic of deterrence and asymmetric resistance. If your concern is truly civilian casualties, then you should first condemn the root causes: Zionist expansionism, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the systemic violence that made armed resistance a necessity—not a choice.

In conclusion, moral outrage loses all credibility when it is weaponized selectively. If you wish to be taken seriously, start by applying your standards universally—to all sides, not just those you oppose politically or ideologically. Otherwise, your argument is not a defense of law or ethics—it’s a defense of power disguised as principle.

TenQ:
Cry me a river.

Are you denying that Allah gave the Holy land to the children of Israel


You are an enemy of Allah!

“Cry me a river”? That’s the depth of your argument? When you’re cornered by facts, you retreat into mockery and childish taunts, exposing exactly how bankrupt your position is. But let’s deal with your next laughable claim—the idea that “Allah gave the Holy Land to the children of Israel.” Let me educate you, since you clearly confuse divine scripture with colonial propaganda.

First, yes, Allah gave Bani Isra’il the land conditionally—when they were believers, when they obeyed, and when they upheld justice. The Qur’an is crystal clear:

> “And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell in the land, but when the final promise comes, We will bring you forth in multitudes.’” [Qur’an 17:104]

That was then. Not a blank check for every oppressor with an Israeli flag in 2024. And when Bani Isra’il rebelled, murdered prophets, and corrupted the message, their favor was revoked. You ignore that because your theology is political—desperate to hijack Islam to justify apartheid.

Second, how dare you accuse a Muslim defending the oppressed of being “an enemy of Allah”? The real enemies of Allah are those who shed innocent blood, steal land, demolish homes, and claim it’s God's will. The Qur’an says:

> “Indeed, those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread corruption on Earth—their punishment is...” [Qur’an 5:33]
So remind me—who’s dropping bombs on refugee camps and justifying it with scripture? Not the Ummah.

Third, you Zionists love to cherry-pick scripture when it suits your theft. But the Qur’an never gave any divine right to occupiers who trample justice. You invoke Allah while supporting a regime that assassinates children and demolishes mosques? That’s not faith—it’s blasphemy wrapped in a stolen flag.

If defending Palestine and rejecting ethnic cleansing makes me an “enemy” in your eyes, then I wear it with honor—because I’d rather stand with the oppressed and die on truth than lick the boots of colonizers and call it scripture.

So go ahead, twist religion to justify your idol—the Zionist state. But remember: the land belongs to the righteous, not the tyrants. And history shows what Allah does to those who claim His name while committing crimes.

basilico:
Entrust religious zealots with a nuclear bomb
Pakistami minister the other day on TV said they have 150 bombs meant for India. Made it clear that they would not hesitate to use it I'd trust Kim Jong UN with nuclear than Pakistan.
Iran cannot be trusted , especially with their belief in the hidden Imam whom they expect to appear in the nearby future. ( Dajjal).

Your response is not only intellectually shallow—it reeks of the usual Western fear-mongering and sectarian ignorance wrapped in the illusion of moral concern.

First, the irony of you warning against “religious zealots” having nukes is laughable. The only country in history to actually use nuclear weapons is the “Christian” United States, which incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And spare me the fiction of secular purity—American presidents invoke God before war, Israeli settlers chant Biblical genocide verses, and evangelicals salivate over Armageddon more than any Shia ever hoped for the Mahdi.

Second, Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is public, defensive, and built in response to decades of Indian aggression, including genocide in Kashmir. Unlike Israel, which denies its arsenal, Pakistan is at least honest. And let’s not forget: it was Western support that pushed both India and Israel into becoming undeclared nuclear powers—yet you conveniently lose your voice when your allies do it. Hypocrisy is the only consistent value you cling to.

Third, your cheap mockery of the Mahdi—whom Muslims believe will restore global justice—only exposes your ignorance. You call him the Dajjal? That’s a theological blunder so absurd it disqualifies you from serious conversation. You don't even understand basic Islamic eschatology, yet you're lecturing Muslims about who's “trustworthy” with technology? Learn first, then speak.

Fourth, you say you’d trust Kim Jong Un more than Iran? Good. Then stop crying about Iran enriching uranium if North Korea’s status doesn’t keep you up at night. Because Iran, unlike North Korea, has signed the NPT, opened its sites to IAEA inspections, and submitted to frameworks—only to be betrayed time and again. Who’s irrational? The one seeking guarantees? Or the one demanding disarmament after repeated Western backstabbing?

Let’s be clear: the issue isn’t about “trust”—it’s about control. You just can’t accept a Muslim nation being scientifically independent, militarily capable, and politically unbending. That’s what disturbs you—not theology, not nukes, not ideology.

So save your manufactured concern. Iran will not beg for approval from a world that’s knee-deep in blood-soaked hypocrisy. Nuclear capability is a deterrent, not a toy—and after Iraq, Libya, and Palestine, any nation that doesn’t secure its own survival is suicidal.

You fear Iran not because it's reckless—but because it won’t kneel. And that, to you, is the ultimate crime.