Leaderboard

Further discussion also in this thread by Rebecca Masterton: https://x.com/rebecmasterton/status/1816752104838742448?s=46&t=cSBAFSCGH9dVrM-ogKDT2Q

You can Google a couple of examples and pick for yourself.

Here is HTS security forces doing nothing and allowing Israeli millitary vehicles to invade a syrian city: https://t.me/thecradlemedia/28689

"New Syria"s news agency tells they seized a weapon shipment to Hezbollah. https://sana.sy/en/?p=345305 Meanwhile "New Syria" allowed Israel to set up 8 army bases in South Syria. https://www.instagram.com/p/DFLJRTzR4Ik/ So, Israel and HTS now are working together to cut the supply line to Hezbollah and besiege them.

Assad mentionned this because the muslim Brotherhood has been in opposition with his government for decades, they opposed hafez al assad who flattened hama to get rid of them because they killed some of his soldiers. Either way, none of this is proof hamas was allied with isis, even you're not so sure of yourself and you're talking about elements from hamas at best. Israel and Syria did not have peace at all, syria was at war with Israel under hafez assad such as the war of 1973 and Syria repeatedly hosted various Palestinian militias(which israel despised) and supplied israels ennemies. Having a common enmity to hamas does not mean Syria will work with israel to curtail hamas, they have far more points of contention than points of intrest. Sometimes they did, sometimes they fought eachother. At the end the dominant groups from the "fsa" were al nusra and isis, later HTS. You need to understand that all groups that spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood don't necessarly all share the same intrests either. I'm going to be honest with you my friend, but as you stated it yourself, the actions of hamas towards isis Sinai have been ambigious, let alone isis as a whole, especially their branches in Iraq and Syria whom have repeatedly shown they were against "secularist hamas". If anything, the article you shared yourself to respond to me a month ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/world/middleeast/isis-hamas-sinai.html Essentially shows that isis Sinai itself did do actions against hamas, even if the war wasn't officially declared and hamas didn't want to bring attention to it, this by no means is them being on good terms, they themselves claim hamas is arresting extreemists from isis. Hamas denying their existence or some police in 2015 not doing anything about some isis march, is in all honesty not good proof that hamas is on good terms with isis or helping them or that isis is not ennemies with hamas. Don't forget that isis has practically declared war on almost everyone, they even this week declared war on hts and told members of hts to join them. These guys are an organisation with mercs as their leadership and zealots as their soldiers, they will eventually backstab their sponsors. America and israel have been the ones to mostly use them in recent years, but who knows if in the future they will turn on Israel and america(again). As for this article of NYT, this is the same nyt that hates hamas and wants to paint them as the spawn of satan. They even tried to sneak this allegation by an Israeli analyst to try and paint hamas as having worked with isis: "Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, said that in the past Hamas had provided the Islamic State’s Sinai branch with training and advanced weapons, and had allowed wounded fighters to come to Gaza for treatment. The recent shift, Mr. Yaari said, was “a typical story of Middle Eastern changing alliances.”" So nyt has 0 reason to lie about isis becomming an ennemy of hamas I don't know about this to be honest, because this goes into hypothetical territory, 9/11's repercussions had far greater consequences than anything seen before, it was a cataclysmic event, it was like a worse version of pearl harbor. People forget how much impact 9/11 has had on the world, it changed the entire middle east, it changed aviation, it changed domestic policy in America.

@Haji 2003 Actually, a number of deadly attacks on the KSA have been linked to al-Qaida, some of which were once attributed—erroneously—to Iran. For example, the 1995 Riyadh attack, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 2003 Riyadh compound bombings, and the 2004 Khobar attacks have all been linked, at one point or another, to al-Qaida. What about Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria? After all, al-Qaida was involved in the Algerian civil war, and its personnel were linked to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. During the “Arab Spring” al-Qaida established a firm presence among anti-secularist movements and “rebels” in North Africa. Al-Qaida has also attempted to eliminate relatively secular Muslim elites elsewhere, i.e., in Pakistan, among them former President Musharraf. Well, this isn’t exactly disputed on this forum. Sunni persecution of Shias did not begin with the British assets al-Wahhab and ibn Saud. The West certainly contributes, and exploits, but does not create the friction out of thin air. Re: 9/11: since this thread is about Syria, I don’t want to go too far OT.

Hi no country has done it officially because it can't be proven through official means while Iran always has blamed both of zionist Israel & the U.S. government by producing dozens of documentaries & inviting people even from America to Iran in order to prove it through all evidences although it couldn't be done officially because only the U.S. government has access to documents about it as high confidential documents which maybe will be remained confidential until fall of the U.S. government.

Wassalam, I like him and immensely respect him, and his family too. His late brother, Sayyid Hussain, and his late father, Sayyid Badr al-Din, have worked a lot to bring the Zaydi and Twelver schools closer to each other at the ideological level. His family, and he himself, have transformed Yemen from an American-Gulf Oildoms semi-colony to a centre of resistance, fighting for freedom from oppression, against extremely heavy odds. I listen to him sometimes but not very regularly.

Because he is a corrupt dictator who isn't liked by his people. His Army behaved like a corrupt gang, overly relying on foreign sources of assistance while incompetence and bribery spread through the ranks. Unlike his own forces, the Turkish-backed militants were highly motivated and were actually preparing for battle. Assad's own allies such as Iran and Russia were said to have told him many times to pay attention to his own domestic situation, but he ignored these requests because he is simply an Arab kleptocrat. I think everyone was surprised that he fell so quick, but after the fact it can be claimed at the same time that some may have seen the writing on the wall, and that the day will come when his rule will end.

Brother, not Assad, the whole country and it's people were Sanctioned by US. This has always been the tactics to topple governments. This is why they sanctioned Iran, Russia etc

Hi! My name is John Steve, and I am currently doing research on Islam. A friend recommended this forum, mentioning that I could find answers to 85% of my questions here. That's why I decided to join. I would appreciate any help you can provide if I get stuck while using this forum. Thankyou.

The miracles in themselves mean nothing even in the Christian context because even the new testament itself warns against false miracles in many places (Matt 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thess. 2:9, etc.)

Salam sister, Firstly we're not talking about perverts who disrespect women in the abayah. I don't see how that is even relevant to the points Allama Mutahari made throughout his book. Why did you feel the need to bring that point up? These are simply emotional statements and they don't lead to anything.

How is he demonizing women? Don't you think men are also demonized for having this instinctive nature to look at women in a certain way? I always hear people say that the problem starts because men can't control themselves. It's not about men being at fault, vice versa. We need to take a holistic approach when it comes to modesty. The author simply stated this potential reality, and we're free to question and explore different theories in psychology. He talked a lot about strengthening family bonds and limiting any potential sexual activity to only a family environment. Therefore even if women have this potential trait, there's nothing wrong if it is limited to a family environment. The problem is when women display their beauty to those who are non mahram to them. Allama Mutahari is very well educated scholar and often quotes the opinions of different psychologists, sociologists etc. You can't judge that one statement and disregard his whole book. Also I agree with the guest user, the author is known to talk in a very figurative way to make it easier for the audience to understand.

In this book he has a whole section dedicated to how men should lower their gaze. Islam doesn't look at modesty in isolation. Our actions and the way we present ourselves affects those around us in society. Even in a mosque if there is one person who is dressed inappropriately, it would affect the overall environment. I also advice you to read this book, because the author is not blaming women for men sinning. There is a whole section on how the hijab brings dignity to a woman. Okay fair enough, but there are also those innocent women who are being used by society, and it's like they feel the need to show off their bodies to every man in town. I'm not making a claim that it's an instinctive thing, but the current mess in society can lead one to think about the possibility. Why do you think the whole film industry exploits women? Why do women even accept themselves to be shown that way? I'm talking about the extreme and that is relevant to the discussion.