Genocide in Nigeria

U.S. President Donald J. Trump has claimed that the United States carried out a “powerful and deadly” military strike against ISIS targets in northwest Nigeria.

In a statement released on Thursday night, Trump said the operation was conducted under his direction as commander in chief and targeted ISIS fighters accused of killing civilians, particularly Christians. He described the strikes as highly successful and warned that further military action would follow if the violence continues.

There has been no independent confirmation of the operation from U.S. defense officials, and no details have been provided regarding the exact locations, casualties, or scope of the strikes.

As of the time of this report, the Nigerian government has not issued any official statement responding to or confirming the claims.

By Muhammad Abubakar

The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) has condemned what it describes as the “sectarian and deeply troubling” conduct of a recent United States congressional delegation to Nigeria.

In a statement issued by its Executive Chairman, Disu Kamor, MPAC faulted the visit of Congressman Riley Moore, who publicly emphasised meetings with Christian and traditional leaders during the trip, including bishops in Benue State and a Tiv traditional ruler. Moore, a vocal proponent of the claim of a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, said on his X account that he came “in the name of the Lord” and held discussions on alleged Fulani-led attacks.

MPAC argued that the delegation’s failure to engage the leadership of the Nigerian Muslim community—particularly the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA)—was a deliberate snub rather than a scheduling issue. It accused the U.S. team of avoiding Muslim victims and communities affected by violence and warned that such selective engagement risked reinforcing “extreme voices and anti-Muslim narratives” within U.S. policy circles.

The organisation said the pattern of “selective listening, selective engagement, and selective outrage” threatens Nigeria’s delicate interfaith balance. It called on international partners, especially the United States, to demonstrate neutrality and ensure that foreign policy on Nigeria is not shaped by religious lobbies or sectarian biases.

MPAC reaffirmed its commitment to justice and peaceful coexistence, urging Nigerians to question why key Muslim institutions and victims were excluded from the delegation’s itinerary.

Dr Ebenezer Obadare, a Senior Fellow for Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), recently testified before a joint briefing of the United States Congress on the security crisis in Nigeria. Given CFR’s extraordinary influence on U.S. foreign policy, as its analysts brief the Congress, the State Department, and the White House, the accuracy and balance of Dr Obadare’s testimony matter significantly.

At the briefing, U.S. lawmakers and witnesses made one demand that every responsible Nigerian, Muslim or Christian, would be happy with: that Nigeria must disarm armed militias and prosecute attackers. The renewed commitment we are now seeing from the Nigerian government, including airstrikes against armed militias, the planned police and military recruitment, and the declaration of a national security emergency are all a response to the mounting U.S. pressure. On this point, American engagement has been productive.

However, Dr Obadare went far beyond the reasonable. After acknowledging the recent steps taken by President Tinubu, he nevertheless insisted that “Washington must keep up the pressure.” To him, U.S. leverage should not only be used to combat Boko Haram but to pressure the Nigerian president to abolish Sharia criminal law in twelve northern states and disband Hisbah commissions across the northern region. This framing is problematic on several counts.

First, it portrays Nigeria not as a sovereign state but as a dependent client whose legal and cultural system must be restructured via external coercion. This is not only intellectually careless; it is politically reckless. Nigeria’s constitutional debates, including the place of Sharia within a federal arrangement, cannot be resolved through directives from Washington. These are matters rooted in decades of negotiation, legal precedent, historical realities, and democratic choice. Such complexity cannot be wished away by foreign pressure or reduced to simplistic talking points about religious persecution. Sharia was introduced between 1999 and 2001 through public consultation and mass popular demand by the local citizens in northern Nigeria, who are Muslims. Subsequently, it was formalised and enacted into law by the various State Houses of Assembly.

Second, Obadare’s argument misdiagnoses the root causes of violence in the north. Boko Haram and ISWAP do not derive their ideology from the Sharia systems implemented by northern states since 1999. In fact, Boko Haram explicitly rejects these systems as insufficient, impure, and corrupted by democracy. They consider northern governors apostates precisely because they operate within a secular constitution. The group’s origins lie in violent extremism, socio-economic marginalisation, and the 2009 extrajudicial killing of the group’s founder, Mohammed Yusuf. It has nothing to do with the Sharia framework implemented by the twelve northern states. In fact, Boko Haram rejects and condemns these state Sharia systems as illegitimate, and this is why the majority of their victims are Muslims themselves. 

It is therefore analytically false to imply that Sharia criminal law fuels this insurgency. This narrative does not withstand even a basic historical timeline. The Maitatsine insurgency of the 1970s, whose ideology and violence closely resemble Boko Haram, predated the introduction of Sharia in the early 2000s by decades. To frame Sharia as the catalyst of terrorism is therefore a misreading of history and to locate causality where it does not exist.

Third, the call to disband Hisbah groups ignores their actual function and constitution. Hisbah institutions are state-established moral enforcement agencies regulated by local laws. They are not terrorist actors, militias, or insurgent organisations. They are contrary to Dr Obadare’s claims that they “impose extremist ideology, enforce forced conversions, and operate with near-total impunity.” These assertions either misrepresent the facts to unfairly tarnish their reputation or reflect intellectual laziness that risks misleading American policymakers. In doing so, they also demonise millions of peaceful Nigerian Muslims who regard Sharia as a legitimate component of their cultural and moral identity.

Finally, Dr Obadare’s testimony, intentionally or not, reinforces a narrative in Washington that sees Nigeria’s crisis primarily through the lens of religious conflict rather than the multi-dimensional reality it is, that is, a mixture of terrorism, banditry, state failure, local grievances, arms proliferation, and climate-driven resource conflicts in the form of farmer-herder crisis. Oversimplification of this serious problem does not aid victims. It distorts U.S. policy and encourages punitive measures that could destabilise fragile communities further and restrict the fundamental rights of millions of Muslims to exercise their faith and adhere to the guidance of Shari’a in their personal and communal lives. 

Nigeria faces serious security challenges amid years of leadership neglect. We genuinely need pressure to put the leaders on their toes, but not the kind rooted in calculated distortion. There is a need for leadership accountability, but not at the expense of Nigeria’s sovereignty. And we need a partnership with the United States in the areas of intelligence gathering, military capabilities and a mutually beneficial partnership. 

The United States should not base its engagement on flawed analyses made by experts such as Dr Ebenezer Obadare, which risk misrepresenting Nigeria’s realities, undermining local institutions, and prescribing solutions that could exacerbate rather than resolve the country’s complex security challenges. Partnering with the Nigerian government enables a tailor-made approach to effectively address these challenges, rather than relying on experts who have long been out of touch with Nigerian realities beyond what they read in media reports.

The Nigerian state must do more, no doubt. But analysts like Dr Obadare must also do better. Nigeria deserves policy analysis grounded in accuracy, proportionality, and respect for the complexities of a plural society; not sweeping prescriptions that collapse constitutional debate into counterterrorism and treat millions of northern Muslims as collateral in the process.

Ibrahiym A. El-Caleel writes from Nigeria and can be reached at caleel2009@gmail.com.

By Aliyu U. Tilde

International perception of religious conflicts in Nigeria is influenced by a propaganda that is overwhelmingly based on biased naming of their victims and perpetrators. When you search the Internet for the killing of Muslims in Nigeria by Christians, the best result you can get would be very scanty. But when you ask about Christian genocide, killings, etc., the result would be very lengthy. Something is amiss.

It is not that Muslims are not being killed by Christians or fellow Muslims. For twenty years, before Boko Haram and bandits started killing mostly Muslims, wholesale massacres of Muslims have been taking place in Northcentral Nigeria especially. And the mass killings have continued even after 2009 when Boko Haram appeared. However, the Internet turns blind when you search for them. Therefore, international observers hardly remember them and researchers hardly notice them. The reason is in the name.

Same Crime, Different Names

When the victim is a Christian, media reporters, who are predominantly Christians in the country, call them Christians, even in a conflict that may have nothing to do with religion. The headlines will quickly read: Fulani kill Christians, Christian communities attacked, genocide of Christians, etc. The Internet sees only what is posted.

On the flip side, when the victims are Muslim, they are given neutral names: villagers, worshippers, civilians, locals, people, Nigerians, etc. The 25 abducted Kebbi school girls are called “school children”, not “Muslim school children”. Their religious identity is cancelled, deleted or hidden deliberately. So when any scholar or reader searches the Internet on Muslim killings or genocide, he hardly gets much.

Again, if the attackers are Muslim, they are eagerly reported as Islamists, jihadists, Fulani (Muslim) militants, terrorists, etc. The Internet easily apprehends them and hands them over to the researcher who receives them with delight and uses them as the statistics of his own narrative, thus multiplying the spread of the bias.

However, if the perpetrators are Christian-affiliated, they are reported as youths, tribal militias, unknown gunmen, attackers, mob, etc. The Christian identity is deleted, hidden and allowed to escape the policing of the Internet.

Thus, the Internet-dependent world of today, as was the mainstream Christian southern press, is afflicted with the illusion that Christians are always the target, and Muslims always the perpetrators, which is false by history, statistics and morality.

Forgotten Massacres of Muslims

The Internet hardly reflects the following carefully planned and executed war crimes against Muslims by their Christian neighbours:

— Kasuwan Magani (1981) – The first major religious crisis began with the nocturnal attack of innocent Muslims by Christians.

— Kafanchan crises (1987, 1999) – Multiple waves of massacres of Muslims.

— Zangon Kataf (1992) – So horrendous that Christian leaders were convicted and a retired General was sentenced to death.

— Tafawa Balewa recurring pogroms (1991, 1995, 2000, 2001) – Ending in the cleansing of the town of its Muslim founders and majority.

— Plateau crises (2001, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012) – More than 40 Muslim settlements were wiped out.

— Yelwa massacre (May 2004) – Exceptionally barbaric; the Christian President suspended the Governor and declared a state of emergency.

— Southern Kaduna (2011) – In Matsirga, Zonkwa, Kachia, and many other southern Kaduna towns where over 1,200 Muslims were killed by Christian militias.

— Wukari crises (2013–2014) – Jukun Christian militias carried out mass slaughter of Muslims.

— Taraba/Jalingo/Ardo Kola (2012–2017) – Entire Muslim communities wiped out.

— Mambilla Plateau massacre (June 2017) – 727 Muslim Fulani herders massacred under the supervision and protection of Christian officials of Sardauna LGA and Taraba State Government.

— Numan massacre (November 2017) – Hundreds of Fulani Muslims killed by Bachama Christian militias.

All of the above gruesome Christian-on-Muslim killings are called ethnic clashes, reprisals, intercommunal violence, farmer-herder conflict, youth violence or mob attack. When Muslims attack Christians, often in defence or reprisal, it is called Islamic violence, jihad, Christian genocide or religious persecution. The asymmetry is astonishing and it is not without its reasons and motives.

Reasons

The naming bias exists because Western institutions are Christian, culturally, and so is the Nigerian media predominantly. This tilts their sympathies, metaphors and moral instincts toward Christian victims. A Muslim killed in Kuru is a Nigerian villager; a Christian killed in Jos is a Christian.

The evangelical world and funding structure of NGOs also share a quota of the biased narrative. Organizations like CSW, Genocide Watch, Open Doors, WWW, ICC Evangelicals, name them, are Christian and their reports are the fodder of CNN, US Congress, BBC, and form the basis of Western narrative. Muslims are not blessed with such infrastructure of global lying and propaganda.

Then Christian traders of conflict especially from the Northcentral, IPOB secessionist, and evangelical entrepreneurs feed this inverted narrative for the purpose of gaining NGO sympathy, Western evangelical funding, UN, US and UK political pressure, diplomatic leverage as well as weapons and security alliances. Moreover, foreign governments are easily animated by the mention of religious persecution rather than ethnic conflict.

There is also this strange desperation to prove Christian persecution in Nigeria which, for lack of sufficient data, is compelling many Christian clerics and politicians to claim Muslim victims as Christians. A picture of a Muslim burial is tagged “Muslim murder 25 Christians in latest violence across Nigeria—Pastor killed, churches torched.” In the instance of the kidnapping of 25 girls from a secondary school in Kebbi, even American officials and former Rep. Riley Moore are insinuating that they are Christians. Fortunately, to forestall any false claim, the school has just released the names of the victims: 100% Muslim.

The same thing with the killings in Bama, abductions in Katsina, and so on. We hope they will not claim that General Alkali and Brig. M. Uba are Christians too. Some people sabi lie. A reverend just told the Internet world that he carried out 70 mass burials, some up to 500 people in mass graves—he alone, he claimed. Where are the graves? No answer. Chineke! IPOB have also jumped into the fray. I watched a video showing cattle grazing while a group of masked men, speaking Hausa with a heavy Igbo accent, claimed to be Fulani terrorists ready to kill Christian Igbo.

Finally, let us also not forget the frequency of complaint and the readiness to exaggerate. Muslims hardly complain over and over when they are killed. They shout once, mourn for three days and carry on, “leaving everything to God.” Christians, on the other hand, as a Christian TikTok girl said, see it as an opportunity to complain, at home and abroad, for the reasons I just mentioned. The Internet algorithms will then definitely be in favour of the Christian narrative.

In the end, a false portrait is painted—that Christians are being wiped out everywhere; Muslims are never victims; Christians never kill; and Muslims kill for religion but Christians for “land” and “in clashes.”

Conclusion

A balance even in vocabulary is always important for proper understanding of any situation. Muslims in Nigeria are learning so since President Trump assigned himself the role of Peter the Hermit. They must learn the art of nagging and complain endlessly as their Christian counterparts do. Finally, they must adopt the Nigerian vocabulary of conflict reporting, naming the religious identity of their attackers and victims, whether Christians or Muslims. Only this would open the eyes of the Internet to their suffering, bring their victims to the notice of researchers and catch the attention of the West and global institutions.

With this egalitarian balance of nomenclature, the world would see a better picture of conflicts in Nigeria and assist the country in overcoming its problems. Without it, the narrative will remain one-sided and the Muslims in Nigeria will always be blamed—and punished—for crimes over which they do not have monopoly.

Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde is a political analyst based in Bauchi State Nigeria.