₦airaland Forum

akwesenana:
Complaints to or against moderators must be sent privately. Please don't disobey, disrespect, or defame them.
21. Please spell words correctly when you post, and try to use perfect grammar and punctuation.
22. Don't ask Nairaland members for contact details (email, phone,

WritterNg:
Lol. I understand.

As Seun no gree make we dey make short comments or post only picture, we gats improvise. 😂 🤣 😭 🤣

dvkot:
As ridiculous as this may sound,iran should offer Trump a nuclear deal to keep them out otherwise crazy nethenyahu will drag America in.

CreativeOrbit:
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.

seunny4lif:
Nigerian Christians are praying for Israel.
Nigerian Muslims are praying for Iran.

Which one the God is going to answer.
Fun fact is that both nation see black as subhumans

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 .

Procashtips:
Seun doesn't currently own his freedom, so his owners decide whatever he must do on this forum, else another hack i n g

Example of Iranian decoys: Many Israeli strikes hit fake launchers— some videos show little to no secondary explosions, suggesting they weren’t real missiles. pic.twitter.com/FgV69Cn0nE

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 15, 2025

CreativeOrbit:
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.

shoodboi2:
I'm wondering why you're suddenly cuddling up to Masterviolence. He is an OG here and I have always looked up to his insights, which you guys have always ridiculed and even insulted him over.

Your lawyer friend was even on his heels some weeks ago, calling him out for for publishing his takes on some issues, and later, for not posting an insight he said he was going to post.

No one here has ever insulted him or thinks he is a backstabber or referred to him as an enemy. He has always claimed to be neutral in his takes, which you guys have always refused to listen to.

Also, he has always repeated it that Iran is no match for a coalition consisting of the US, Israel, and the many state and non-state actors that will be assembled against it, which is true. (And seriously, outside of Russia and China, is there any other country that can withstand such as coalition?)

He has also made multiple neutral statements in the past, including one where he criticized anyone using RT or Kyiv Independent as a source of information since they are a mouthpiece of their respective governments.

He also repeatedly mentioned that he is not biased against the US, has always celebrated their technological prowess (along with that of the IDF), mentioned that Iran isn't technologically strong, and called for Iran to get nukes if it doesn't want to be invaded.

Are all those statements not neutral enough for you?

Listen up, you in particular, are not very popular for using your brain. Everything to you is black and white, and this second part also applies to much of your colleagues.

You automatically assume anyone who is not for you is against you. You don't even think that some can be neutral.

But now, you're cuddling up to him because he said what he has always been saying --- but at a time when you want to hear it. Just make sure to keep this same energy when he later posts something you don't like.

Obedience40:
Why do you think Kingsnairaland has carefully refused to comment on the current military confrontation between the Jews and the Iranians, because he doesn't want to be call out by "Big daddy" WriterNG, hence he is trying to play safe so as not to incure the wrath of the pro Russian horde here, Who is going to like and share his "mother Russia" "Mother Russia i love you" comments??

WritterNg:
⚡Netanyahu:

Think about what would happen if Iran had nuclear weapons or 20,000 such missiles to land on Israeli cities.

Gbadebo19:
Follow accounts that pay for satellite imagery, not poor sheik sulayman that is posting copy and paste lies all over Twitter. Iran will reel in pain for several years after this.

FoolishBoy419:
Don't be a warmongering assh0le and you will be safe from Iran.

FXtrader2025:
100% on point if you notice his mods doesn’t move Iran strikes to FP only Propaganda against Iran.
The Guy lives in the UK his Servers also in the UK, Instead of him to be independent and use his platform
Wisely like The Owner of TG he is just there like a lame duck! Imagine till date no Official NL App no user interface Upgrade just bland shit from early 2000’s i dont rate the Guy one bit, he is too comfortable

usmanpogo:
Iran would find it difficult or nearly impossible to defend itself against Israeli air force if it doesn't do anything about Iraq. The Iraqi airspace is uncontested, a leeway for the IAF to rain missiles at a safer distance.

If the Iraqi government isn't complicit in this campaign then it must stop the IAF from it's airspace or the Iranians can move in and set up defenses.

Crayfish09:
True but I think mosf of the strikes in Tehran were carried out from within. If there's one thing I must concede, it's that Iran's intelligence is at slowpoke level

23jerryking:
Must you always try all within your might to live up to what you describe yourself to be in your moniker? You have a long journey to make as far as history between the two nations are concerned. Do you think anybody in that region will be safe of Iran becomes nuclear-enabled?
A country that sponsors terrorism in various parts of the world, just dey play.

usmanpogo:
Iran shares land borders with seven countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey. None of these countries allowed their airspace to be used except Iraq.

Bro all the planes are coming in through Iraq, no other country would allow their airspace be used except Iraq. It's either they are complicit or the government can't control its airspace.

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.

CreativeOrbit:
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.