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.