[Fatema-the-resplendent]

The problem with Sunnis is that everyone else outside of their aqeedah is Kafir and the problem with Shias is that they can not see goodness in anyone else other than their own leaders.

BOTH are wrong. Good people can be Christian too and one must praise bold and brave steps taken by anyone; this does not bring you down. Imam Khomeini was a great Man he was a true leader-changed the course of history. Name me one other Muslim leader to stand up to the USA and win?

This is not about Shia or Sunni, we are all Muslims. We should be proud of Irans achievements of self sufficiency despite sanctions, of not giving in to the USA and their endeavours in Science and Technology. It is the only American free Muslim state.

As for Pakistan, once Imran Khan another great leader gets in, will also become an American free state.

I also have Iranian friends and will tell you that most Iranians have deep respect for Khomeini and the older ones will tell you he did very well for Iran. Slave of two husayns, you are on a hate agenda aswell as Magnet-Why? doesn't Islam teach tolerance of other groups. I have immense respect for Mahatma Gandhi for his humanity-does this mean I am hindu loving person?
I quite liked King Hussein, he seemd a kind man despite his 'unislamicness' and many european wives. Does it mean I support monarchy?

Muslim mentlaity of today and narrow mindedness kills all hope of us ever becoming brothers and sisters in Islam.

This post has been edited by Fatema-the-resplendent: 15 February 2012 - 11:16 AM

[Desert-Sheikh]

Mystic, on 15 February 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

If Sunnis cannot even help themselves what do we expect the 12er shia to do ?

Well said brother....!

Sunnis are biggest hypocrite, always have been every tyrant's best ally. From Amir Muawiya (radi Allahu anhu) to Parvez Musharaf, Sunni’s always have been licking tyrants' boots and probably always will. When Shia kicked bloody Shah out of Iran, Sunnis were pampering Sadam, Qadafi, Asad, Fahad and Zia-ul-Haq, and along with their father-USA, they all supported Iraq aginst Iran during the War. And the most recent, Mr. Musharaf in Pakistan was unconditionally supported by all Sufis, Barelvi, Devbandi and Wahabi scholars.

No, I’m not a Khomini fan but I am neither a fanatic Shia-phobic.

[Mudassar-Rana]

[quote name='Mystic' timestamp='1329278528' post='442046']
We live in a free world. Muslims should be free to support who they please. Did you know Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) used to sit in the company of shias ?


Abu Hanifa’s shaykhs were from different persuasions and disparate sects. They were not all fuqaha’ of
the main sunni community and they were not only people of opinion. Some of them were hadith scholars
and some taught the fiqh of the Qur’an and the knowledge of the great Qur’anic commentator, ‘Abdullah
ibn ‘Abbas. When he stayed in Makka for about six years, which is understood from some of the books
we have cited, he must have studied with the Tabi‘un there who had learned the knowledge of Ibn ‘Abbas
from him or from his students.
Many of those he sat with in Iraq were from among the sects of the Shi‘a with all their differences.
They included the Kaysanites, the Zaydites, the Twelver Imams and the Isma‘ilis. Each had an effect on
his thought, even if he did not follow their leanings except in respect of his love for the House of the
Prophet. He took in all those disparate elements and assimilated them to reach his final conclusion. Abu
Hanifa utilised all these elements, taking the best from them, and then produced a new way of thinking
and an upright opinion. (Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Zahra pg. 24)



More proof if it was ever needed that we are muslim and nothing else.Throw the false titles before they consume your thoughts and lives.

[qalam]

Please, don't try to divert the discussion.

This post has been edited by Desert-Sheikh: 15 February 2012 - 03:09 PM

[Mudassar-Rana]

Below is Stratfor's take on Iran's naval exercise in the strait of hormuz

Iran's Deterrence Strategy in the Strait of Hormuz
February 9, 2012 | 1342 GMT


Summary



Iranian naval exercises scheduled for February underscore a strategy that is both political and military: To deter an attack, Iran must enhance the perception that it possesses the strength to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. And it needs to continually refine its own tactics, capabilities, and command and control processes in order to maintain that perception. However, the exercises carry the risk of exposing operational weaknesses, and ongoing tensions mean a misstep could escalate into conflict.

Analysis

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is slated to conduct naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz later this month as part of the seventh "Great Prophet" exercise, the latest in a series of exercises dating back to 2006. The IRGC has already begun ground maneuvers (Hamiyan-e Velayathave) further inland. This year opened with the end of the Velayat-90 naval exercises, followed by ground maneuvers conducted near the Afghan border (Shohaday-e Vahdat).

Each exercise highlights Iran's need to heighten the credibility of its military capabilities. A strong perception that Iran could not only initiate but sustain action in the Strait of Hormuz strengthens the credibility of its deterrent against U.S. military action. But with U.S. warships located in the Persian Gulf and the wider region, Iran must boost such perceptions carefully to avoid revealing operational vulnerabilities or sparking an unintended escalation.

The Great Prophet exercises are led by the more ideologically committed IRGC, which has been involved in some of Iran's most aggressive recent behavior -- its gunboats harassed the USS Hopper (DDG 70), USS Port Royal (CG 73) and USS Ingraham (FFG 61) while transiting the strait in January 2008 -- and some of the most overtly staged displays of military power.

Perhaps the most notorious recent incident took place in 2008 during the third Great Prophet exercise. The IRGC staged a simultaneous launch of multiple ballistic missiles and rockets in a manner clearly designed more as a public relations stunt than a tactically representative exercise. After one of the missiles failed to launch, Iran released forged photos showing a fully successful launch. The images appeared prominently in newspapers throughout the West.

The incident reflects the inherently political nature of military exercises. They are both a demonstration of and a process for refining military capability. The perception of a military's capability is at the core of both warfare and international relations. And while a small group of experts followed the subsequent news of Iran's forgery, the wide distribution of the altered photo likely enhanced such perceptions. Therefore, Iran may have considered the forgery a success. Additional staged photo opportunities can likely be expected during the upcoming maneuvers.
Iran's Deterrence Strategy

Iran's overall military strategy rests on deterrence. It cannot repel a concerted, sustained air campaign conducted by the United States. And despite multiple denials and significant disinformation efforts, Tehran cannot assume the punishment it would sustain from a U.S. attack would not be severe. If the United States has good intelligence (which is hardly assured given the ongoing denial and disinformation campaign being conducted by Iran), can achieve the element of surprise and can sustain a lengthy air campaign, Tehran must consider the possibility that its nuclear program could be set back as much as a generation. It is Stratfor's assessment that the Israeli air force cannot effectively attack the enormous target set Iran presents. And the United States must consider the possibility that without the three aforementioned factors, an unsuccessful attack could fail to set Iran's program back more than a few years.

Thus Tehran must ensure that Washington always finds the consequences of an attack more costly than enduring Iran's behavior. Iran's ballistic missile arsenal and its clandestine assets across the region serve this purpose. But the real calculus involves the steady flow of crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Although the majority of this oil does not flow to the United States, a disruption to oil markets could severely destabilize the U.S. economy in the midst of a global economic crisis. This is Iran's central deterrent.
Balancing Perception and Risk

Iran's task would be far less complex than the U.S. military's challenge to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for large, slow-moving crude-laden tankers to transit safely. But the U.S. naval presence off Iran's coast is significant. Iran's ability to effectively command and coordinate military operations in the strait is a serious challenge. The stronger the perception that Iran can both initiate action in the strait and sustain it, the more credible the deterrent.

These are complex and continually evolving military dynamics that require ongoing rebalancing of tactics and operational concepts. And they require command and control. To this end, the IRGC has increasingly emphasized independent and autonomous operations once the command is given to initiate hostilities. This is an important standard, but it requires considerable training.

Iran must strike a balance. While refining its capabilities, Iran must be careful not to expose any weaknesses in operational practice, thus undermining Western perception of Tehran's capabilities. Doctored photos in Western newspapers successfully alter public thinking, but the U.S. military monitors Iranian activity with a more sophisticated eye.
Cold War Dynamics

As Stratfor has argued, attempting to disrupt traffic in the strait is Iran's most potent military option. Similar to the Cold War dynamic between the United States and the Soviet Union, neither Washington nor Tehran wants war -- but the risk for miscalculation and subsequent escalation is significant. Similar to the actual nuclear dynamic between the two superpowers, any exchange in which Iran attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz means that Iran's strategy of deterrence has already failed. High-consequence brinksmanship magnifies problems of both negative and positive control: It must prevent an unauthorized use of force by hard-line commanders. And it must ensure that its orders can be properly communicated and executed.

At this point, a conflict in the strait is not likely to result from a deliberate initiation by either side. Instead, the primary risk is a skirmish or incident that escalates following a misunderstanding or miscalculation

[sunniskeptic]

FTR
Salam but you make a lot of inaccurate generalisations: pointing out that Iran, since the reign of the Ayatollahs, has, by and large, promoted an aggressively pro-Shia foreign policy in its national interest
whilst oppressing its minority Sunnis at home and that the regime is widely unpopular is not 'hate-mongering'; neither is it hate mongering to give exact quotes from Khomeini which are not only
anti-Sunni but the product of a warped mind. Also, it is not hating Shias to note that the Iranian revolution despite its rhetoric has not done any good for the world's Muslims and that the rise of the mullahs in Tehran
is actually against Pakistan's national interest. Iran has opposed Pakistan consistently in Afghanistan and our closeness to the Saudis irks them. They are the only Muslim country supporting the killings of the Sunnis
in Syria and pro-Assad regime and they are quick to condemn the killings in Bahrain although a handful have died in Bahrain and at least 7000 have died in Syria. Why is that if it isn't for solidarity for the Shia cause?
If Saudi Arabia was Rafidhi-Arabia the Iranian mullahs would have no qualms with it.

Saudi Arabia is Pakistan's constant friend and ally not Tehran. It is in our national interest to support them and to have a Pakistan friendly government in Kabul too. Iran is not our enemy but nor is it
our friend. Geostrategic a or alliances are made on cold calculations of national interest not on some idealistic ideas of Muslim solidarity especially not when the other party has constantly shown itself
to be biased and blinkered.
Iran having the Bomb is the right of Iran (and any other nation) and I do NOT support the US or Israel attacking it for that reason or pretext BUT it is NOT in Pakistan's interest for this current
Iranian regime to get nukes therefore, at best, Pakistan should stay neutral. Yet any attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia must be met with a full Pakistani response on the side of the Saudis.

Please address issues and don't make statements which are blatantly untrue such as 'for Sunnis anyone not on their aqeedah is a kaafir '. Sunnis believe Shias are bidatis in aqeedah: all Sunni classical scholars agree on that. The arguments are over whether their bidah in aqeedah goes into kufr or not and we don't do blanket takfir of them all but nor have we ever considered them anything other than mubtadis and historically the relations--even political--have never been cosy.
They have always stabbed Sunni empires in the back when they've gotten the chance. Rafidis don't exactly love us either
despite the taqqiyah people like Khomeini did in public. It is all there in his writings what he really thought. Mention Hazrat Aisha and the most 'liberal' of Shias will have a problem keeping a straight face.
Mention Hazrat Umar and they die a thousand deaths.

Despite this difference in religious details, politics and supporting Iran is all to do with national interest and not religion. The Shah also ruled over the same Shia population but his policies were much more pro-Pakistan but that's because he was secular in practise.

Brother Someone in his emotional anger said if attacked Iran could defend itself by firing 1000s of missiles in the Gulf countries and Arabia.
If Iran does that it should know that Pakistan has very likely signed a defence pact with Saudi and our 120-200 nukes can very easily
reach Tehran. Even if Pak decides to do nothing, do you think Israel wont hit back with nukes if you or Hezbollah bomb its cities with missiles
in retaliation for a strike on your nuclear plants?

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 15 February 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

The problem with Sunnis is that everyone else outside of their aqeedah is Kafir and the problem with Shias is that they can not see goodness in anyone else other than their own leaders.

BOTH are wrong. Good people can be Christian too and one must praise bold and brave steps taken by anyone; this does not bring you down. Imam Khomeini was a great Man he was a true leader-changed the course of history. Name me one other Muslim leader to stand up to the USA and win?

This is not about Shia or Sunni, we are all Muslims. We should be proud of Irans achievements of self sufficiency despite sanctions, of not giving in to the USA and their endeavours in Science and Technology. It is the only American free Muslim state.

As for Pakistan, once Imran Khan another great leader gets in, will also become an American free state.

I also have Iranian friends and will tell you that most Iranians have deep respect for Khomeini and the older ones will tell you he did very well for Iran. Slave of two husayns, you are on a hate agenda aswell as Magnet-Why? doesn't Islam teach tolerance of other groups. I have immense respect for Mahatma Gandhi for his humanity-does this mean I am hindu loving person?
I quite liked King Hussein, he seemd a kind man despite his 'unislamicness' and many european wives. Does it mean I support monarchy?

Muslim mentlaity of today and narrow mindedness kills all hope of us ever becoming brothers and sisters in Islam.

[sunniskeptic]

FTR
Salam but you make a lot of inaccurate generalisations: pointing out that Iran, since the reign of the Ayatollahs, has, by and large, promoted an aggressively pro-Shia foreign policy in its national interest
whilst oppressing its minority Sunnis at home and that the regime is widely unpopular is not 'hate-mongering'; neither is it hate mongering to give exact quotes from Khomeini which are not only
anti-Sunni but the product of a warped mind. Also, it is not hating Shias to note that the Iranian revolution despite its rhetoric has not done any good for the world's Muslims and that the rise of the mullahs in Tehran
is actually against Pakistan's national interest. Iran has opposed Pakistan consistently in Afghanistan and our closeness to the Saudis irks them. They are the only Muslim country supporting the killings of the Sunnis
in Syria and pro-Assad regime and they are quick to condemn the killings in Bahrain although a handful have died in Bahrain and at least 7000 have died in Syria. Why is that if it isn't for solidarity for the Shia cause?
If Saudi Arabia was Rafidhi-Arabia the Iranian mullahs would have no qualms with it.

Saudi Arabia is Pakistan's constant friend and ally not Tehran. It is in our national interest to support them and to have a Pakistan friendly government in Kabul too. Iran is not our enemy but nor is it
our friend. Geostrategic a or alliances are made on cold calculations of national interest not on some idealistic ideas of Muslim solidarity especially not when the other party has constantly shown itself
to be biased and blinkered.
Iran having the Bomb is the right of Iran (and any other nation) and I do NOT support the US or Israel attacking it for that reason or pretext BUT it is NOT in Pakistan's interest for this current
Iranian regime to get nukes therefore, at best, Pakistan should stay neutral. Yet any attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia must be met with a full Pakistani response on the side of the Saudis.

Please address issues and don't make statements which are blatantly untrue such as 'for Sunnis anyone not on their aqeedah is a kaafir '. have Sunnis and bidatis amongst the Muslims and outside
them kafirs/non-Muslims. Shias are bidatis in aqeedah: all Sunni classical scholars agree on that. The arguments are over whether their bidah in aqeedah goes into kufr or not. Rafidis don't exactly love us either
despite the taqqiyah people like Khomeini did in public. It is all there in his writings what he really thought. Mention Hazrat Aisha and the most 'liberal' of Shias will have a problem keeping a straight face.
Mention Hazrat Umar and they die a thousand deaths.


No one said non-Muslims cannot be good people. But in what way was Khomeini good? Mandela forgave his imprisoners after 25 years in jail and forged a nation which is why he is respected the
world over. Khomeini killed his former enemies!
And if the criteria for being 'a great man' is changing history--something I never denied--if you read carefully I said there were some things about Khomeini I admired after reading his biography--
then Hitler also changed history and much more than Khomeini ever did. So do you admire him? Osama ibn Laden also changed history and he did it in the name of Islam (just like Khomeini)
--do you also consider him great? He is responsible for far fewer deaths than the Ayatollahs!

Someone like Ali Shariati has done much more good for Iran than Khomeini and his ilk. Or the late grand Ayatollah Montazeri who was ostracised for criticising Khomeini's policies of killing
his opponents (before that he had been Khomeini's official successor!).

As for the brother fantasising about Iranian help to the world's Muslims--where? In Bosnia it was the Pakistani ISI which sent secret caches of weapons for them despite a UN embargo and
the Turks who threatened to invade. In Afghanistan when USSR invaded it was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who bore the brunt (with US help afterwards). Where was Iran?
The Saudis give much more money to the Palestinians than anyone else ever does!


Despite all this, politics and supporting Iran is to do with national interest and not religion. The Shah also ruled over the same Shia population but his policies were much more pro-Pakistan
therefore we would prefer him.

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 15 February 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

The problem with Sunnis is that everyone else outside of their aqeedah is Kafir and the problem with Shias is that they can not see goodness in anyone else other than their own leaders.

BOTH are wrong. Good people can be Christian too and one must praise bold and brave steps taken by anyone; this does not bring you down. Imam Khomeini was a great Man he was a true leader-changed the course of history. Name me one other Muslim leader to stand up to the USA and win?

This is not about Shia or Sunni, we are all Muslims. We should be proud of Irans achievements of self sufficiency despite sanctions, of not giving in to the USA and their endeavours in Science and Technology. It is the only American free Muslim state.

As for Pakistan, once Imran Khan another great leader gets in, will also become an American free state.

I also have Iranian friends and will tell you that most Iranians have deep respect for Khomeini and the older ones will tell you he did very well for Iran. Slave of two husayns, you are on a hate agenda aswell as Magnet-Why? doesn't Islam teach tolerance of other groups. I have immense respect for Mahatma Gandhi for his humanity-does this mean I am hindu loving person?
I quite liked King Hussein, he seemd a kind man despite his 'unislamicness' and many european wives. Does it mean I support monarchy?

Muslim mentlaity of today and narrow mindedness kills all hope of us ever becoming brothers and sisters in Islam.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Please address issues and don't make statements which are blatantly untrue such as 'for Sunnis anyone not on their aqeedah is a kaafir '. have Sunnis and bidatis amongst the Muslims and outside
them kafirs/non-Muslims. Shias are bidatis in aqeedah: all Sunni classical scholars agree on that. The arguments are over whether their bidah in aqeedah goes into kufr or not. Rafidis don't exactly love us either
despite the taqqiyah people like Khomeini did in public. It is all there in his writings what he really thought. Mention Hazrat Aisha and the most 'liberal' of Shias will have a problem keeping a straight face.
Mention Hazrat Umar and they die a thousand deaths.

In your previous avatar brother you were a sunni skeptic and now your a shia skeptic!

I love the bit about shia's being bidati's in aqeedah - something the sunni's have heard enough of from our wahabbi cousins! Who is anyone to decide whose aqeedah is a bidat? Have we really acquired mujtahid status that we can decipher what is right and what is wrong. We make decisions on limited knowledge and trust those above us who have passed down their OPINIONS.

The ummah would be a much less dysfunctional if we could agree to just disagree rather like the ahadith which calls differences a mercy. As long as someone can provide evidence for their belief why do we have to get our knickers in a twist? Or if br qalam had his way dhoti's in a twist. Either way untwist em!

[qadrimuslim]

br MR.. the Sunni / Shia debate is an OLD one and yes the theologists have not minced their words about Shia'ism. The ideology is misguided. We don't do blanket takfir of the Shia as a group but we do know there exist some Shi'i who are extreme in their belief and are on kufr.

I recommend you watch the video on the homepage by Abdol-Karim Soroush in which he discussed some of the key factors.

Back to the topic.. this is not necessarily a Sunni-Shia issue because it is ALL Muslims that are suffering. However, I agree with Sunni skeptic that Iran is not the enemy but neither is it a friend. But we must still try to get our house in order. The alliances discussed in this thread are down to Nationalism (which many scholars consider the worst type of Shirk).

Reminds me of what Sayyidi Mufakkir e Islam includes in his dua "Save Muslims from Watan-parasti and turn them back to Khuda-parasti".

Wa-la Ghalib Il-Allah "There is no Conqueror but Allah".

[Mudassar-Rana]

qadrimuslim, on 17 February 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

br MR.. the Sunni / Shia debate is an OLD one and yes the theologists have not minced their words about Shia'ism. The ideology is misguided. We don't do blanket takfir of the Shia as a group but we do know there exist some Shi'i who are extreme in their belief and are on kufr.

I recommend you watch the video on the homepage by Abdol-Karim Soroush in which he discussed some of the key factors.

Back to the topic.. this is not necessarily a Sunni-Shia issue because it is ALL Muslims that are suffering. However, I agree with Sunni skeptic that Iran is not the enemy but neither is it a friend. But we must still try to get our house in order. The alliances discussed in this thread are down to Nationalism (which many scholars consider the worst type of Shirk).

Reminds me of what Sayyidi Mufakkir e Islam includes in his dua "Save Muslims from Watan-parasti and turn them back to Khuda-parasti".

Wa-la Ghalib Il-Allah "There is no Conqueror but Allah".

Br QM im not going to agree or disagree with your view - as i have no inclination either way. Its often said that if you get 2 economists together they will never agree on an issue. The same applies to ulema, whether they be our illustrious predecessors or contemporary claimants to the title. Issues that lay dormant for centuries were exploited by the british (in india) firstly and in the last few decades in pakistan groups funded either by saudi, iran or even our own government has created dancing maulvi's who change their tune according to the dollars in their accounts. A good example is iraq - where shia and sunni lived together, intermarried without much ado. Even their initial fightback against the invaders was united. However seeds were sown where a shia mosque was blown up and blamed on sunni's and vice versa. Similar to British india where a dead cow was thrown into a temple or a dead pig into a mosque. British soldiers were caught in Basra and arrested by Iraqi police dressed as arabs with bombs on a mission. In the end to avoid embarrassment British army had to do a raid to release them. im not sure but i think some died in the ensuing firefight.

Yes there are extreme and corrupted shia with erroneous beliefs, but there are the same minorities within the sunni too. The rise of wahabism is a classic example. My words arent for them - it is for the ordinary people who destroy themselves for either politicians or ulema. Whilst their leaders children get the best of education abroad and live lavish lifestyles it is the sons and daughters of the poor who shed their blood for these people.

If my understanding is correct the basic foundation of shia is that Syedna Ali as was the rightful heir. Too me it doesnt make an iota of difference whether Syedna Ali a.s was the first or the fourth caliph - he is and was one of the best of creations of allah swt and temporal position doesnt make any difference to him or his status. The same applies to Abu bakr r.a, umar r.a and uthman r.a. History has not seen a better ruler than umar r.a - and when someone posed the question to syedna ali a.s about the greatness of umar's rule his riposte was that umar r.a. had men like me behind him whereas i have the likes of you behind me!

We do a great disservice to ordinary human beings who are victims of books and powerful men's whims, desires (whether honest or dishonest) - who wish to live in peace and harmony and watch their children grow up. Instead we culture them in such a way that they end up hating their own brethren. I know of people who do not eat in their own son in laws house because he is a tableeghi - so they end up disconnecting with their own daughter. This is the richness of hate. It creates divisions and allows enemies to take advantage and further exacerbate the problem.

Yes Iran has problems, it has big problems. But there is no way I would wish that an enemy would wipe its people of the face of the earth. And to those that would take pleasure of the destruction if iran please remember iran is a neighbour of pakistan. America and india have a foothold in Afghanistan from where they have supported the baloch and Swat insurgencies. Imagine once they have a base in Iran what havoc they could reak. An encircled Pakistan is to no one's benefit. And no matter what level of friendship exists between Saudi and Pakistan it would never favour Pakistan against American interests because un ka baap bi amrika hai!

Apologies for the long post - if u get this far!

[Magnet]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 15 February 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

The problem with Sunnis is that everyone else outside of their aqeedah is Kafir and the problem with Shias is that they can not see goodness in anyone else other than their own leaders.

BOTH are wrong. Good people can be Christian too and one must praise bold and brave steps taken by anyone; this does not bring you down. Imam Khomeini was a great Man he was a true leader-changed the course of history. Name me one other Muslim leader to stand up to the USA and win?

This is not about Shia or Sunni, we are all Muslims. We should be proud of Irans achievements of self sufficiency despite sanctions, of not giving in to the USA and their endeavours in Science and Technology. It is the only American free Muslim state.

As for Pakistan, once Imran Khan another great leader gets in, will also become an American free state.

I also have Iranian friends and will tell you that most Iranians have deep respect for Khomeini and the older ones will tell you he did very well for Iran. Slave of two husayns, you are on a hate agenda aswell as Magnet-Why? doesn't Islam teach tolerance of other groups. I have immense respect for Mahatma Gandhi for his humanity-does this mean I am hindu loving person?
I quite liked King Hussein, he seemd a kind man despite his 'unislamicness' and many european wives. Does it mean I support monarchy?

Muslim mentlaity of today and narrow mindedness kills all hope of us ever becoming brothers and sisters in Islam.

Iran was not and never will be a friend of Ahlus Sunnah. I suggest you stop praising Khomeini (LA) who openly cursed Khalifa Rashidun (RA). How can you respect a man that curses Sahaba (RA)? You have not answered me here.

If you look at the Iranian revolution, that cursed Khomeini was a dictator and he shut out or killed anyone who opposed his rule, this includes other ayatollahs. Yes, he was better than the Shah for Iranians, but he just replaced him with another dictatorship. The Shah had the SAVAK security killers, and the Iranian mullahs have the BASIJ and IRGC killers. This whole Waliyat eFakih system is a tool to use religion to control the people, so no one can say no. Many Iranian Shias did not agree with this system.

If tomorrow, Israel starts bombing Pakistan, you watch the mullahs in Iran will show no sympathy for you.

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Magnet, on 17 February 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Iran was not and never will be a friend of Ahlus Sunnah. I suggest you stop praising Khomeini (LA) who openly cursed Khalifa Rashidun (RA). How can you respect a man that curses Sahaba (RA)? You have not answered me here.

If you look at the Iranian revolution, that cursed Khomeini was a dictator and he shut out or killed anyone who opposed his rule, this includes other ayatollahs. Yes, he was better than the Shah for Iranians, but he just replaced him with another dictatorship. The Shah had the SAVAK security killers, and the Iranian mullahs have the BASIJ and IRGC killers. This whole Waliyat eFakih system is a tool to use religion to control the people, so no one can say no. Many Iranian Shias did not agree with this system.

If tomorrow, Israel starts bombing Pakistan, you watch the mullahs in Iran will show no sympathy for you.

I will praise whom I like since my independent mind will decide who is worthy of it, as for you the hate is consuming you and something I do not want to be partisan to.

I do not believe he was a dictator the PEOPLE decided for him to come lead, normally dictators amass wealth and complete power to the detriment of it's citizens. This obviously did not happen in Iran he was brought in following a legitimate revolution-the Iranians deciced.

I also do not believe in propaganda warfare where character assasinations happen in order to halt comaraderie or alliance.

The bottom line for me he was and is a good man, the level of support he enjoyed in his lifetime is witness to that. I believe an Independent Musim state that is free from American influence is a big achievement-something ofcourse you have not commented on.

As for Pakistan, I am not a nationalist and see the whole Muslim World as one big family. I know if Pakistan is bombed tomorrow no Muslim country will stand by it's side as it is kind of being bombed right now. Pakistan is not Iran's problem since it has by choice befriended the Americans.

Lastly if you hate Khomeini, carry on there are many like you but when you remove your hate glasses believe me you will start to see things for what they are. Goodluck on your quest for objectivity.

This post has been edited by Fatema-the-resplendent: 17 February 2012 - 10:33 AM

[Desert-Sheikh]

Magnet, on 17 February 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Iran was not and never will be a friend of Ahlus Sunnah. I suggest you stop praising Khomeini (LA) who openly cursed Khalifa Rashidun (RA). How can you respect a man that curses Sahaba (RA)? You have not answered me here.

If you look at the Iranian revolution, that cursed Khomeini was a dictator and he shut out or killed anyone who opposed his rule, this includes other ayatollahs. Yes, he was better than the Shah for Iranians, but he just replaced him with another dictatorship. The Shah had the SAVAK security killers, and the Iranian mullahs have the BASIJ and IRGC killers. This whole Waliyat eFakih system is a tool to use religion to control the people, so no one can say no. Many Iranian Shias did not agree with this system.

If tomorrow, Israel starts bombing Pakistan, you watch the mullahs in Iran will show no sympathy for you.

Please, don't bring respect-issue into this discussion, or, you can start a new topic if interested to discuss this matter but it will lead us nowhere. Regarding Khomeini, he is just following someone's footsteps who's the crown of 'Sunnis' heads. It is evident that He not only had hatred against the Blessed Companions but also used to abuse and curs them.


Another user said that Iran didn’t help Iraq during US-invasion. Well, where were the other 56 Sunni countries? Didn’t Sunni’s paid the full ‘cost’ to pentagon for Iraq invasion and now they are begging US to attack Iran? And where were all Sunni countries when Saddam invaded Iran??

Anyway, if you cannot stop US-Israel attacking Iran or fight along with Iranians against any invasion, have some sympathies with a Muslim country and its millions of Muslim population.....be a human not a mad-mullah.

[someone50]

Magnet, on 17 February 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Iran was not and never will be a friend of Ahlus Sunnah. I suggest you stop praising Khomeini (LA) who openly cursed Khalifa Rashidun (RA). How can you respect a man that curses Sahaba (RA)? You have not answered me here.

If you look at the Iranian revolution, that cursed Khomeini was a dictator and he shut out or killed anyone who opposed his rule, this includes other ayatollahs. Yes, he was better than the Shah for Iranians, but he just replaced him with another dictatorship. The Shah had the SAVAK security killers, and the Iranian mullahs have the BASIJ and IRGC killers. This whole Waliyat eFakih system is a tool to use religion to control the people, so no one can say no. Many Iranian Shias did not agree with this system.

If tomorrow, Israel starts bombing Pakistan, you watch the mullahs in Iran will show no sympathy for you.

Who are you to represent Ahle Sunnah? You could be one of those Indian paid CIA operatives online propagating and inciting hatreds amongst people. You and this 'enemies of two hussein' are just playing here and there to express hatreds with nonsense ideas.

OHH Iran never helped other Muslim countries, yea hide the facts like we are all blind and never know what happened in the last 4 decades..

Ohh Iran is looking for its own national interests... Lets for a second say what you are saying on Iran is true, and Iran never helped Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Tajikistan and etc...
OK, so what? The Muslim world would have been way better if you had a few Khomeini in Sunni world... who at least helped their own nations and just like Shia Khomeini took some (fake as you claim) sides with the entire Muslim world.

The world would have been much much better if ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES looked for their national interests like Iran.. ANY MUSLIM COUNTRY who is looking for its own NATIONAL INTERESTS independently and benefiting its own people, that directly and indirectly BENEFITS THE ENTIRE UMMAH.

What the government of Saudi is doing with its oil, gold and status to help its nation and Sunnis? Except serving third parties in the West? Expressing animosity against Iran from a Western perspective when it is needed for Western politics, not for the sake of Saudis or Sunnis. What about the government of Pakistan, where does it spend all its energy, strategy and resources? To serve a few powers and then receive some yearly salary to present Pakistan and Afghanistan on a plate to them! What about Gulf states and central Asian countries? Do they independently serve their own national interests or the interests of their masters?

The problem with you jealous and haters and Sunni governments are that you are looking for the interest of the West, for the interests of Israel. And whatever you are doing against Iran, you listen to the third party on how to deal with Iran. For example, the Gulf states are confronting Iran not for the sake of their own national interests or of Ahle Sunnah, but for the sake of pressure from the West and from Israel.

Today, the government of Pakistan is acting independently and said it is not going to stop IP gas pipeline and will not allow the West to use its soil against Iran. Now, to analyze this move, what if Pakistan did the opposite due to pressure and dependency to the West? Who else would have lost besides Iran? First, if Pakistan stops IP gas transfer, it is going against its own interests and energy demands, second if it allows the West to use its soil against Iran like it did against Afghanistan, it is going to create chaos in other half of the country!

You 100s of times repeated the same propaganda that Khomeini ® were cursing your Sahaba, but you never once mentioned the Fatwa of Khamenei, Iran's current Leader who said insulting or cursing of those who are dear to Sunnis are Haram!

What the Kuffar countries are doing to Prophet Mohammad, propagating and insulting the holy Quran and Islamic personalities 24/7, you ignore all those for your so called benefits and the next day your Sunni Presidents and Kings are kissing the feet of Denmark, Dutch, English, French and American presidents and governments for the so called shared interests and politics... But, when it comes to Iran, ohhh lets go and check what Khomeini said in one of his books and etc... And after reading those phrases on Khomeini's book we will decide how to deal with Iran! That is your mentality and your stance!

[Magnet]

someone50, on 17 February 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Who are you to represent Ahle Sunnah? You could be one of those Indian paid CIA operatives online propagating and inciting hatreds amongst people. You and this 'enemies of two hussein' are just playing here and there to express hatreds with nonsense ideas.

Look, you are "Noah-" on ShiaChat. Anyone here can read his posts and see he is anti-Sunni and doing taqiyah to pretend he cares about us. He calls the women, children and unarmed AhlasSunnah Muslim men dying in Syria as "terrorists".

Now you are trying to do label me as an Indian? By the way, there are many Indian Muslims on here, so I wouldn't go there. This is the same tactic you guys use on ShiaChat to attack any Sunni, but now you are trying to bring it here. Stick to your Sunni-bashing on ShiaChat - you have no credibility here after what you write there.

[sunniskeptic]

Someone50

That last post was just a rehash of your previous rants.
As a British Pakistani Muslim I have the right to like and support whoever I like and wont
be brow-beaten by the likes of Iranian government propagandists like you who disguise your
hatred of Sunnis and your callous disregard for the murders of at least 7000 innocent people in
Syria by the kafir Assad just because of his pro-Iranian stance.

Khomeini insults those most dear to us and for you we should just overlook it?
Who cares what fatwas Khamana'i gives in public? It is actions not words that matter.
That is just taqiyyah.
Look, I've got nothing against the average Iranian or even the average Shia. But it is your
attempt to whitewash the atrocities in Syria and gloss over the evil actions of the Iranian
regime -- just because they are Shia--that annoys me.

Why should anyone believe you (Iran) and not believe the rest of the world's media?
Are we blind?

--
Anyway it doesn't matter what me or you want the fact is Iran is going to get smoked like a Cuban cigar
and all its plans for Shia hegemony will count for nought after its nuclear sites are bombed and the regime
is changed. Even most Iranians like the ex president Khatami, and even Khomeini's grandson, Ahmad Khomeini,
don't like the current mullah regime as it is oppressive.

Yes, Pakistan should do deals with Iran which benefit Pakistan like the pipeline (I've got nothing against doing business
with Iran or anyone else) but that doesn't mean we support Iran against our own national interests or the interests
of the Sunni world in general.

The truth is we have more in common with the average North Indian than we do with you guys (or Arabs) and I would
like to get better relations with India first. However, the Saudis do FAR MORE than Iran in helping other Muslim countries FINANCIALLY (I gave the link from Wiki with the statistics earlier). As for their own country they have used their oil wealth
to give their citizens a far higher standard of living than in Iran. Yes, they should become less rigid and more liberal
but the average Saudi has much more quality of life than the average Iranian under the rule of the so-called "Islami Jamhoor e Eran" (though under the Shah Iranians lived much better than Saudis). So that's another argument of yours down the drain. As for their help to my people, Pakistanis, they have always helped us financially and when we had sanctions on us from the USA after the 1998 nuke tests we did, the Saudis gave us oil for FREE. Iran did jack.

(BTW, it is just your wishful thinking that the Iranian regime is independent and doesn't do deals with the West etc, etc. They have been dying to normalise relations with the USA in particular,behind the scenes, and even Ahmadinijad has sent letters to Obama begging to do a deal but Obama has ignored him which he then interprets to his own people as
defiance of USA! Don;t take my word for it just read Counterpunch!
I'm still waiting for you to show your concern for all Muslims by openly condemning the killings in Syria in general
and Homs in particular by the vile Assad regime and calling for its overthrow. Can you at least do that?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

The thread has turned into Sunni Shia slinging match with no conclusion nor respect.

There is no sense in continuing it.

Topic locked.

This post has been edited by Fatema-the-resplendent: 18 February 2012 - 12:07 AM