58 replies to this topic

[Waiting for HIM]

A thread going on ... See the video on this link http://www.shiachat....__fromsearch__1

Then read this: http://www.democracy...ME-Peters06.htm

Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look

By Ralph Peters*

Armed Forces Journal | June 2006

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
 



Maps of the Middle East Before (left) and After (right) Redrawing (Click on map to enlarge)
 

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.

• • •

WHO WINS, WHO LOSES

Winners —

Afghanistan
Arab Shia State
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Free Baluchistan
Free Kurdistan
Iran
Islamic Sacred State
Jordan
Lebanon
Yemen

• • • 

Losers —

Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Kuwait
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
West Bank

[Waiting for HIM]

[Philip]

apart from the repelling scratching and fiddling of his scull remains (1:12, 3:49, 4:55 ) .. a bit strange to do this in front of camera .. there are these points:

1- instead of condemning zionists, he sees them as an example
2- he encourages us to be materialistic and sells idea of shia arab nation so they can make oil money
3- the creation of a shia state ignoring IRI .. and what about khurasani & mahdi & all that ..
4- talking about "conscience of the world" being a driving factor .. when has that ever been the case?
5- he is claiming the reason why people don't give attention to bahrain is because there is just so much more going on (Yemen & Libya), instead of real reason being that they are shia protesting against american-friendly sunis.

in general he is not appearing to be planning for zuhur or confronting world corruption .. instead giving them credit, counting on them, and acting out of context of Islam

Maybe i am wrong about it all .. Allah knows best ..

[Waiting for HIM]

You are right on..

[Marbles]

^ How is the "new" map created by the Zionists?

[Haydar Husayn]

The new map looks pretty good to me.

[Haji 2003]

In light of current developments then, it looks like some people would prefer Syria to go to Sunni Iraq. And if war breaks out between the US and Iran, it looks to me as if Khuzestan whether independent or part of that Arab Shia state will be the price that Iran pays.

Not mentioned on shiachat are current oil majors deals in Kurdistan, which look increasingly like playing off the Kurds against the Iraqis. So likely that will break off sometime.

Marbles, on 11 February 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

^ How is the "new" map created by the Zionists?

Because in 1947 Israel was a small country surrounded by lots of, relatively united, large Muslim countries focused against it. By 2020 you'll have a much bigger Israel surrounded by lots of small Muslim countries perpetually at war with each other.

Welcome to the Israeli commonwealth.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

hmmmmmmmmmm, so basically what you're saying is ...

+ +

well it's certainly looking that way that's for sure.

[Marbles]

Haji 2003, on 11 February 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Because in 1947 Israel was a small country surrounded by lots of, relatively united, large Muslim countries focused against it. By 2020 you'll have a much bigger Israel surrounded by lots of small Muslim countries perpetually at war with each other.

Welcome to the Israeli commonwealth.

Israeli commonwealth? No way.

I don't quite get it. The maps of the region in question are just the same today in 2012 as they were in 1948 except for the change of rulers in Occupied Palestinian territories following the war in 1967. I don't think that the predictions of this "new" map would come true by 2020. But in any case it wasn't drawn out by the Zionists; events in the Middle East and South Asia in the last decade or so have led to this.

Anyway, Muslim countries of the region fought between themselves then and they fight now. The solution to their conflicts isn't in redrawing of the maps. Sure, current borders were drawn up by European colonialists to serve their own interests but an attempt to redraw them today would unleash new forces of discord and dispute inevitably culminating in murder and mayhem. It's a recipe for disaster.

Edited by Marbles, 11 February 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[thenamelessone]

As I have written on why we cannot divide ourselves already in other threads http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2343123 I will concentrate in this thread on the specific problems with this speech;

First, beginning of 7 seconds (a fast start!) he states; “ Why don’t you expand on the shia crisis and widen it” my response is; why are we making a very bad situation worse and who is the ‘you’ that got mentioned? The U.S.?  who is ‘you’?
Second; at 35 seconds he compares a Jewish homeland (ie: Isreal) to his desire for Shia in the gulf countries. My response; What, we get to go against every single teaching of Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (saw) and become unjust oppressors? What Shi’i would actually desire hell because that’s where we would be going!

Thirdly; at 1:06 (One minute six seconds) he states “Why don’t all the Shia in the gulf rise up and demand their own nation”
Yet his followers make statements such as this in opposition to the words of the sheikh:

Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki, on 10 February 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

I disagree, Sheikh Yasser al-Habib has not called for any violence

Yet we look at the words spoken by the sheikh beginning at 4:43 “But it will take years to be fulfilled, years of struggle and jihad, in order for this to happen it will happen, others have sacrificed and succeeded, much sacrifice but it will happen.” If this is not calling for violence and acknowledging that people will be dying, what is? His followers state:

Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki, on 10 February 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

This concept of rising and fighting is a Bakri concept, the `Aimmah (sa) have warned us strongly against being impatient.

So if you know the teachings of the Aimmah why do you ignore Their teachings? This is not ignorance; this is outright not having any desire to follow Shia Islam, and saying so!


At 3:05 to 4:01 he suggests the UN and the US provide support for this and further states @ 5:35 in the video “We simply ask for a poll by the U.N. and it is not a crime”

I say it is a crime! It is a crime for which you will be judged on the Day of Ressurection!
O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism, this Qur'ân, and Muhammad ), and have driven out the Messenger (Muhammad ) and yourselves (from your homeland) because you believe in Allâh your Lord! If you have come forth to strive in My Cause and to seek My Good Pleasure, (then take not these disbelievers and polytheists, etc., as your friends). You show friendship to them in secret, while I am All-Aware of what you conceal and what you reveal. And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray, (away) from the Straight Path. (Al-Mumtahinah 60)

At 6:55 he speaks of the current situation in the gulf being enflamed and says alhamdolillah, who on earth is happy to see people dying, children orphaned? What heart is this? I am sick. He later speaks on a hadith that I currently can’t reference, but from memory it is from sunni books, but I’m seeing if I can’t locate it in our books, and if so, if it’s been taken far from the context intended.
Notice also the HUGE smile on his face and how his eyes light up when he speaks of the oil in this dream homeland he wishes to create! (@ 2:21) This is simple greed. This is wrong, there is nothing good in this man, nothing even remotely shia in him.

Edited by thenamelessone, 11 February 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Greg Potemkin]

Ya Aba 3abdillah, on 11 February 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

hmmmmmmmmmm, so basically what you're saying is ...

+ +

well it's certainly looking that way that's for sure.

Hey Yaba, who is the shia dude at the bottom?

[Waiting for HIM]

Marbles, on 11 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Israeli commonwealth? No way.

I don't quite get it. The maps of the region in question are just the same today in 2012 as they were in 1948 except for the change of rulers in Occupied Palestinian territories following the war in 1967. I don't think that the predictions of this "new" map would come true by 2020. But in any case it wasn't drawn out by the Zionists; events in the Middle East and South Asia in the last decade or so have led to this.

Anyway, Muslim countries of the region fought between themselves then and they fight now. The solution to their conflicts isn't in redrawing of the maps. Sure, current borders were drawn up by European colonialists to serve their own interests but an attempt to redraw them today would unleash new forces of discord and dispute inevitably culminating in murder and mayhem. It's a recipe for disaster.

The map is part of the article and the book Blood Borders.

And it would be very naive to think that political developments and infigtings between Muslim and other nations in ME and Asia would be happening in a vacume withoutnany of the Israelis hands in it. When I say Israel, it's just not e country, it's a united phenomenon consisting of --> State of Israel + Arms manufacturers + Drug manufacturers + Diamond Mines owners who are one and same people and benefit the most from political chaos and hence they manufacture those in various geographies.

They use nations, politicians, dictators, and all the minions who are happy to play poodle for a short life of luxuries and wealth.

A ME divided and at each others throat creates immense business opportunities for the elite group in addition to a defacto security for their cancer that they introduced in ME.

And yes, unfortunately a whole lot of politically unwise Shias are totally irrelevant in this new game of Hussain (s) and Yazid (l). Seems like the caravan of Ishq would just carry those who belong from Iran and Lebanon and maybe Iraq.

Edited by Waiting for HIM, 11 February 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki]

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

As I have written on why we cannot divide ourselves already in other threads http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2343123 I will concentrate in this thread on the specific problems with this speech;

First, beginning of 7 seconds (a fast start!) he states; “ Why don’t you expand on the shia crisis and widen it” my response is; why are we making a very bad situation worse and who is the ‘you’ that got mentioned? The U.S.?  who is ‘you’?

"You" = The Shi'a

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Second; at 35 seconds he compares a Jewish homeland (ie: Isreal) to his desire for Shia in the gulf countries. My response; What, we get to go against every single teaching of Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (saw) and become unjust oppressors? What Shi’i would actually desire hell because that’s where we would be going!

You're exagerrating his statement.  He is merely saying that "look what happens when a group of people come together for a common cause", in this example he used land because the whole topic is land.

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Thirdly; at 1:06 (One minute six seconds) he states “Why don’t all the Shia in the gulf rise up and demand their own nation”

Yet we look at the words spoken by the sheikh beginning at 4:43 “But it will take years to be fulfilled, years of struggle and jihad, in order for this to happen it will happen, others have sacrificed and succeeded, much sacrifice but it will happen.” If this is not calling for violence and acknowledging that people will be dying, what is?

Jihad is not just fighting, you clearly have chosen only one definition to misquote him.

He is saying, very clearly, that it will require a lot of hard work, speaking the truth, being ridiculed by people like yourself and many on this thread, being cursed by people like you, and being murdered by Bakri terrorists for speaking the truth.  That is Jihad.  It is a struggle to speak the truth in the face of adversity.

He is not saying "years of picking up weapons and killing people"

He is saying "years of being killed and defending yourself and your families for speaking the truth"

I'm disappointed you're so brainwashed by propaganda that you misinterpret the word Jihad.

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

So if you know the teachings of the Aimmah why do you ignore Their teachings? This is not ignorance; this is outright not having any desire to follow Shia Islam, and saying so!

nonsensical statement which we do not do or believe at all

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

At 3:05 to 4:01 he suggests the UN and the US provide support for this and further states @ 5:35 in the video “We simply ask for a poll by the U.N. and it is not a crime”

I say it is a crime! It is a crime for which you will be judged on the Day of Ressurection!
O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism, this Qur'ân, and Muhammad ), and have driven out the Messenger (Muhammad ) and yourselves (from your homeland) because you believe in Allâh your Lord! If you have come forth to strive in My Cause and to seek My Good Pleasure, (then take not these disbelievers and polytheists, etc., as your friends). You show friendship to them in secret, while I am All-Aware of what you conceal and what you reveal. And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray, (away) from the Straight Path. (Al-Mumtahinah 60)

What about the TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYAH... you JAHIL, do you even know what you just said?

Then consider your hypocrisy...

Khamenei says "it is haraam to curse the wives or sahabah of prophet (sawa)"

Then you quote this verse.

Ironically, Khamenei is allies with Assad (nasibi)

We are following this verse because we are speaking out against falsehood from the books with honesty.

thenamelessone, on 11 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

At 6:55 he speaks of the current situation in the gulf being enflamed and says alhamdolillah, who on earth is happy to see people dying, children orphaned? What heart is this? I am sick. He later speaks on a hadith that I currently can’t reference, but from memory it is from sunni books, but I’m seeing if I can’t locate it in our books, and if so, if it’s been taken far from the context intended.
Notice also the HUGE smile on his face and how his eyes light up when he speaks of the oil in this dream homeland he wishes to create! (@ 2:21) This is simple greed. This is wrong, there is nothing good in this man, nothing even remotely shia in him.

You are disgusting, you're blatantly twisting what respected Sheikh Yasser al-Habib is saying and you are pretending to know his intentions.

He is not greedy, I know him personally, he is very humble lives in a small condition with struggling income and finance and pours his heart and soul out to his community to help encourage memorization of Qur'an, learning Arabic, studying history and hadith, knowing the sciences...

May Allah forgive you and guide you for your venom against this person who you have no evidence against except prejudiced hatred.

Compare our words to your words sincerely and reflect inshallah.  Who are the takfiris?

Greg Potemkin, on 11 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Hey Yaba, who is the shia dude at the bottom?

The "Shi'a dude" at the bottom is our respected scholar, Ayatollah Sayed Mujtaba Shirazi, brother of the deceased Grand Ayatollah Sayed Muhammad Shirazi.

[thenamelessone]

Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki, on 11 February 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

You're exagerrating his statement.  He is merely saying that "look what happens when a group of people come together for a common cause", in this example he used land because the whole topic is land.



Jihad is not just fighting, you clearly have chosen only one definition to misquote him.

He is saying, very clearly, that it will require a lot of hard work, speaking the truth, being ridiculed by people like yourself and many on this thread, being cursed by people like you, and being murdered by Bakri terrorists for speaking the truth.  That is Jihad.  It is a struggle to speak the truth in the face of adversity.

He is not saying "years of picking up weapons and killing people"

He is saying "years of being killed and defending yourself and your families for speaking the truth"

I'm disappointed you're so brainwashed by propaganda that you misinterpret the word Jihad.




What about the TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYAH... you JAHIL, do you even know what you just said?



May Allah forgive you and guide you for your venom against this person who you have no evidence against except prejudiced hatred.

Compare our words to your words sincerely and reflect inshallah. Who are the takfiris?

1) I'm not exaggerating, if he wanted he could have used Iran, but he didn't use an Islamic visual, he used the Zionists. One has to wonder why. Does he have more respect for Zionists than his supposed Shia Muslim brothers? Looks that way!

2) he is saying Jihad which will end in death. so your saying he plans on making Sunnis so angry that they will try to kill you, then you have the right under Islam of self defense? (Is this not going against the Islamic laws of akhlaq and twisting laws of Jihad so that it appears justifiable?) and how is that right? your still going against the teachings of Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (saw) to achieve your end

3) As you appear not to know about the ayah I posted let me show you with tafsir

[Shakir 60:1] O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them? And I know what you conceal and what you manifest; and whoever of you does this, he indeed has gone astray from the straight path.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 60:1]
The immediate occasion for the revelation of this passage was a letter, secretly despatched from Madina, through a slave songstress of Makka who came to Madina posing as a destitute but was a spy, by Hatib, a muhajir, addressed to the Makkans, giving them notice of the intended Muslim expedition to Makka, and advising them to arm themselves to fight against the Holy Prophet. Jibrail revealed the affair to the Holy Prophet who immediately sent Ali, Miqdad and Ammar after her. The spy, when intercepted, readily presented herself for a search, denying the charge she was accused of. Having full faith in the knowledge of the Holy Prophet, Ali threatened her with slaughter if she did not produce the letter. Then she brought the letter from the long tresses of her hair. On being questioned, Hatib offered the excuse that it was solely due to his natural desire to save his unprotected family at the hands of the Makkan pagans. The Holy Prophet, in view of his past conduct, graciously asked him to seek pardon from Allah.

This was shortly before the conquest of Makka, but the principle is of universal importance. There cannot be any intimacy with the enemies of your faith and people, who are persecuting your faith and seeking to destroy you and your faith. You should not do so even for the sake of your relatives, as it compromises the life and existence of your whole community. For treachery the plea of children and relatives will not be accepted when the day of judgement comes. Children, family and friends will be of no avail.

The command to avoid contact with the enemies of the truth is the basis of the doctrine of tabarra. Tabarra is not vulgar vilification or wanton abuse. It is that which has been commanded in this verse.


and last but not least I merely picked apart his lecture and showed the truth of it, I did not insult him in anyway, you are the only one doing takfir

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

Greg Potemkin, on 11 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Hey Yaba, who is the shia dude at the bottom?

"Ayatollah" Sayed Mujtaba al-Shirazi

[Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki]

Your arguments are invalid, your feeble attempts to expose him were refuted by me, and you never acknowledged the treaty of Hudaybiya which the Prophet (Sawa) made between the Muslims and the Kuffar.  There is nothing wrong with political truce between Muslims and Kuffar if it is benefiting the Ummah, just as the treaty of Hudaybiyyah.  He isn't trying to be friends with them and share their pillows and marry them.

Takfir means to refer to someone in a way that they are a Kafir.

I never called you a Kafir or referred to you as a Kafir.

You called Sheikh Yasser al-Habib a Kafir when you said

Quote

This is wrong, there is nothing good in this man, nothing even remotely shia in him.

[Marbles]

Waiting for HIM, on 11 February 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

The map is part of the article and the book Blood Borders.

And it would be very naive to think that political developments and infigtings between Muslim and other nations in ME and Asia would be happening in a vacume withoutnany of the Israelis hands in it. When I say Israel, it's just not e country, it's a united phenomenon consisting of --> State of Israel + Arms manufacturers + Drug manufacturers + Diamond Mines owners who are one and same people and benefit the most from political chaos and hence they manufacture those in various geographies.

They use nations, politicians, dictators, and all the minions who are happy to play poodle for a short life of luxuries and wealth.

A ME divided and at each others throat creates immense business opportunities for the elite group in addition to a defacto security for their cancer that they introduced in ME.

And yes, unfortunately a whole lot of politically unwise Shias are totally irrelevant in this new game of Hussain (s) and Yazid (l). Seems like the caravan of Ishq would just carry those who belong from Iran and Lebanon and maybe Iraq.

So what do you think the Muslims have been doing while the state of Israel interfered, destabilised and controlled the Muslim countries of the ME?

[thenamelessone]

Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki, on 11 February 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Your arguments are invalid,

you never acknowledged the treaty of Hudaybiya which the Prophet (Sawa) made between the Muslims and the Kuffar.  There is nothing wrong with political truce between Muslims and Kuffar if it is benefiting the Ummah, just as the treaty of Hudaybiyyah.  He isn't trying to be friends with them and share their pillows and marry them.

Takfir means to refer to someone in a way that they are a Kafir.

You called Sheikh Yasser al-Habib a Kafir when you said

1) My arguments are perfectly valid

2) this is the outline of the peace treaty to which you refer;

The outline of the treaty was as follows:

In the name of almighty Allah. These are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah and Suhayl ibn Amr the envoy of Mecca. There will be no fighting for ten years. Anyone who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Anyone who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so. A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad (saw) without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned. This year the muslims will go back without entering Mecca. But next year Muhammed (saw) and his followers can enter Mecca, spend three days, perform the tawaaf. During these three days the Quraish will withdraw to the surrounding hills. When Muhammad (saw) and his followers enter into Mecca, they will be unarmed except for sheathed swords.

This is a treaty of peace between the pagans who controlled the Kaaba at the time and the Muslims who wanted inside the Kaaba in order for pilgramage, the Holy Prophet (saw) did not want money, or arms, or any aid whatsoever from them. It was just that, a peace treaty. What you sheikh wants is all manner of international support, he is not asking for peace with the UN and the US. Also, the Holy Prophet (saw) was not making peace with the pagans so that He (saw) could wage war against people who had said the shahadah.

3) let us do some comparisons here

in this video he states that Iran is neither a Shia government nor an Islamic one -- now, a shia government is a government run by shia muslims, in doing so he just said every single member of the Iranian government is not shia in that one sentence --- what can we call this?



while in the one you posted he is happily comparing his aspirations for Bahrain to the Zionist aspirations in Palestine. This is what Shia do? make declarations of others not even being shia while wanting to become like the Zionists? This is Shia Islam according to the teachings of Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (saw) ???? NO! NEVER! This is not the behavior of a man who fears Allah and lives by the teachings of the Masumeen (saw)

Edited by thenamelessone, 11 February 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Waiting for HIM]

^^ thanks for a very logical comparison. Alhamdolillah a lots of us are politically wise enough to not get deceived by traitors who wear turbans.

I just can not fathom those mentality who profess to be Shia and say Iran is not a Islamic republic or Islamic regime. Things are measured from their relativity (urf in Islamic terminology). Of course Iran is not what it would be under the leadership of Imam Mahdi (s) but in relation to current global community, it is the best that we have, let's make it even better and spread it's model than constantly allowing gooflings among Shias to mindlessly criticize it.

Edited by Waiting for HIM, 11 February 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki]

[REMOVED]

Edited by Replicant, 11 February 2012 - 04:30 PM.
Disrespect of scholars

[thenamelessone]

Waiting for HIM, on 11 February 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

^^ thanks for a very logical comparison. Alhamdolillah a lots of us are politically wise enough to not get deceived by traitors who wear turbans.

I just can not fathom those mentality who profess to be Shia and say Iran is not a Islamic republic or Islamic regime. Things are measured from their relativity (urf in Islamic terminology). Of course Iran is not what it would be under the leadership of Imam Mahdi (s) but in relation to current global community, it is the best that we have, let's make it even better and spread it's model than constantly allowing gooflings among Shias to mindlessly criticize it.

Your welcome and I agree Alhamdolillah

Yes I also agree with your statement on Iran, and I do think they are trying their best, anyone could say its not good enough or its not just, but again, during the time of ghayba we have to have governance, and I dare anyone to do better.

I feel slightly badly for saying against this shiekh faith, but I cant see faith in him, nowhere can I see Aale Muhammed , its funny because when people ask me what my faith is on the street I just say muslim, its not because I don't love, follow and practice religion according to the teachings of the Ahl al Bayt its because im terrified im not good enough to call myself shia, and I don't want anything I do to ever bring shame on Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (saw), then I see men like this and I just have to wonder if they truly believe.

[Waiting for HIM]

Agree the way he talks and his demeanor is not very Islamic either.

I have seen ulema and I have seen them behave. I have met converts, not just teenagers, intellectuals, political scientists, authors who converted by meeting and getting impressed by these ulema.

God bless

[Philip]

I can tell you what's behind this .. power .. some guy in a turban gets a power trip thinking he can bring a great nation like the Islamic nation down .. and become the next "shia" super hero .. and notice that he doesn't seem to care at all about zuhur

i think he's a shia of the zionists

[thenamelessone]

^^^ seconded!

You know, speaking of speaking of the Imam (atf) its honestly what impresses me the most about P. Ahmadinejad, not one speech does he give without opening in the name of Allah and making dua for the return of the Imam (atf).

[Waiting for HIM]

Ahmedinejad vs. Yasir Habib.

Like..

True Shia vs. Fake Shia
Genuine activist vs. Arm chair general
Respected vs. Ridiculed
Millions listen to him vs. YouTube following
Follower of Ahlulbayt vs. Follower of his nafs
Unifying Muslims vs. Creating fitna
Wise leader vs. Bimbo