Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mo.

  1. I dont think its problematic. When it comes to science, Jews are more sincere and honest about things than Arabs or Muslims for that matter by a million light years. Arabs cant even acknowledge that most muslim scientists in the golden age werent Arabs much less be trusted. But thats for another time... Im sure the finest universities around the world do not want to destroy their reputation by making false studies and concluding false information. I dont know whats so bad about the original semitic people being lightskinned and I dont know whats so wrong about Jews being originally lightskinned in specific. Afterall these are native mediterranean peoples. The biodiversity dictates these things. Science institutes all over the world, research institutes associated to the finest universities, which im sure everyone of us wished to be enrolled in at some point in our lives, are the ones making these conclusions.
  2. Lanat: But you're missing something more obvious. The biggest component of worship is a person's inner belief. I know Saudis who go to mosque, pray 5 times a day, and yet they don't believe in god's existence. They think it's all fake. Yet they're bowing down, "praying" to him and yet they don't believe in him despite all the prayers and salutations. Belief is the most important aspect of worship. Mary is not a god, she is not a deity or something divine, just because a few people sang a few songs about her, prayed to her for intercession, etc. That doesn't make you creator of everything, creator of the heavens and the earth, creator of all forms of life, not least of which is human life with the start of Adam and Eve and their subsequent lineages. Mary is not a god, neither is she seen as one. Catholics praying to her for intercession is no different than Shias praying to imams for intercession. Songs about Mary are no different than songs about Hussain. And it's no different than prophet Mohammad interceding for people in the afterlife so that they enter heaven. It does not make them gods. To turn someone into a god, you must believe in his/her divinity/deity. If Catholics simply pray to her for the sake of intercession, make a few songs, but at the end of the day acknowledge that she's not a god and dismiss her association to any form of divinity, then she's not worshiped besides Allah. So actually, the strongest bit about worshiping a deity is to believe that this thing you're worshiping is god. It brings me back to my example of Saudis I know who pray 5 times a day, recite Qurans, etc. But inside them, there's no god. Catholics praying to Mary doesn't make Mary a god anymore than Muslims kissing the black stone makes the black stone divine. A pagan Arab from your time machine would see Muslims kissing the black stone and think it's a god until told it isn't.
  3. A true Sunni: Regarding the dna of Jews, I read about genetic studies which concluded that the Jewish people have almost identical haplogroup types to the native populations of the levant, such as the Lebanese people, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. So actually, the Jews didnt mix with Europeans as much as you like to believe. Theyre pretty much native mediterranean people, which explains their identical haplogroup types matching that of the other levantine populations. Which might also explain similar appearances between them. And yes, mediterranean people tend to be white. Biodiversity dictates that. Theres no reason for a mediterranean to be darkskinned. Dark skin has to do with your position relative to the equator. As for Arabs, they were never darker before. Genetic studies also prove that. Arabs are and were overwhelmingly light skinned. The dark skinned ones are byproducts of interracial marriages between Arab men/women and African men/women. Or theyre also dark skinned because they were Arabized. You dont sound like you live in the middle east. === Well theres a pretty simple explanation for that. We religious people belong to the old age. The new age is all about godlessness and evolutionary science. The future will see colonizations and terraformations of other planets while we end up in history books and go down in history for debating the skin color of a man who lived over a thousand years ago. Lets make the most of it. :P
  4. macisaac: Don't you think it's cheap to use images of people praying to Mary in order to somehow prove that Christians worship her? That's pretty low and cheap coming from a Shia website which honors the imams just the same way as Catholics honor Mary. This is really surprising people. We're in a Shia forum and we are claiming that Catholics worship Mary just because they pray to her for intercession. I thought this sect of Islam is supposed to be more intellectual when it comes to making the differentiation between worship and intercession. You can apply that to anything, including Islam. Islam today looks violent, talks violent and sounds violent. So it's probably violent, eh? === Saintly Jinn: Actually you could use an even better example. Muslims kiss the black stone. Gee, I guess we're all black stone worshipers. === Actually you just made the argument a whole lot worse. Because if Allah mentions the trinity and condemns it, and then mentions the worship of Mary and then condemns that, then it means that Allah thought Christianity's trinity is to believe in: Allah, Jesus and Mary as three deities. If a Collyridian calls himself a Christian and then believes Mary is a godess, then he's no longer Christian. If a Muslim believes in Allah and the last messenger and then believes Mirza Gullam is the Mahdi or Jesus's resurrection, then he's no longer Muslim. You can't use an argument against Christianity by condemning a heretical group that shot off Christianity and became something totally different. It seems like people's arguments around here are the following: 1 Allah was referring to Collyridians. But unfortunately, the Collyridians are just as non-Christian as another group of believers because they blasphemed the message of the bible. So then the argument switches to point number 2, which is: 2. Allah is referring to Catholics today who take Mary as a goddess because they pray to her. But the problem here is that Mary is an intercessor, not god, not divine and never elevated in any Christian script to the status of God, be it the father, son or holy ghost whatever they call it.
  5. Science has no classification for shooting stars. There's no such thing. A shooting star is what people back in the olden days believed in because they didn't know the difference between a star, comet, asteroid, meteorite, planet, etc. Except for the sun and moon, everything in the sky was a star - some of which were stationary and some of which moved by Allah's discretion (to chase demons, thus "shooting stars"). A lamp is also a source of light. Allah's idea of what gave light in the nightsky is contradictory to science. Planets reflect light, they do not emit light. But in the Quran, they and stars are the same category: both are lamps, meaning both are sources of light in the nightsky. The science here is rather primitive because it cannot distinguish between different cosmic objects. Not just that, but it assumes that all visible objects in the sky are lamps, ie sources of light, and hence of fiery elememts, and hence used as hurling objects at demonic entities. Whatever shoots across space has no light source infact, except for its tail, which is hardly visible unless very near to earth's orbital pull. The whole sky was decorated with lamps. These lamps are mostly stars by today's interpretation of science. And these lamps are collectively rujuman for the demons. That tafsir had me confused, I must admit. It's rather an extraordinary interpretation of rujum and shayateen. Allah begins that passage by mentioning something literal in the nightsky, as lamps, decorating the sky. And then suddenly the passage shifts metaphorical and is interpreted as astrologists getting hit (in some form) by god's wrath. It's an odd interpretation and has split the ayah into two halves. The first half where god clearly mentions how he decorated the nightsky with lamps, and then the second half which talks about astronomers getting hit by a guesswork that is associated to these physical lamps. If anything, the tafsir makes it look even more confusing.
  6. To the OP: I remember having these silly, nonsensical debates with Afro-centric nationalists many years ago: "Mohammad was black", "Arabs are originally black", "This guy and that guy were all black", etc. Disgusting. My biggest toothache is when somebody wants to plagiarize other people's history. Like the time Arab nationalists made claims about Saladin being Arab, even though he was Kurdish. Or the time Arab nationalists made claims about Ibn Sina being Arab, even though he was Persian. Don't steal or plagiarize other people's history. If you go to Saudi Arabia today and look at the real Arabs, they're all white. I'm not kidding. Go to Najd, go to Hijaz, look at the actual pure Arabs. Don't look at the Arabized people. The real Arabs have a light skin color. As if it matters but that's the truth anyway, live with it. I love how you say original Arabs were blacks. No, they weren't. Many years ago I remember reading historical texts about the Ethiopian-African invasion of Yemen, a region of southern Arabia. After the African warriors slaughtered all the princes and men of the Yemenite kingdom (I think it was called Himyar Kingdom if I'm not mistaken), the women were ordered not to be harmed. They were given as brides to the African soldiers and they were described as being white skinned, black eye colored women. Of course there are dark skinned Arabs but let's not forget why. Contrary to what people think, they're not offsprings of "slave African women who bore the children of their Arab masters". Yes, a good number of dark-skinned people in Arabia today are a result of an Arab guy and slave African lady. But the majority of dark-skinned people in Arabia today are actually offsprings of male African soldiers and native Arab (light-skinned) women. It has been happening for hundreds of years in southern Arabia, prior to Islam, because southern Arabia was constantly raided and plundered by African kingdoms. In fact I remember those texts even saying that pagan Arabs, or "pre Islamic Arabs", were more openminded about mixing with Africans. Infact, Islam actually created an invisible 'divide' between pure Arabs and blacks. These revelations all showed to me that Arabs are originally light-skinned, but I'll hand it that alot of them became darker over the generations, because many of them mixed with invading African armies. Don't forget Arabia was easy to take before Islam came out. Islam ironically saved the Arabs of the northern and central parts from facing similar consequences as southern Arabia. As for the prophet. His lineage was Qureishi. Qureishis are the whitest Arabs you'll meet. Again, this shouldn't matter to you. But it amazes me how you think there's some "conspiracy" behind not revealing Imam Ali's true "blackness". This is as big a joke as Arab nationalists trying to steal the glory of Persians and Kurds and Mamluk-Turks.
  7. And we have beautified the sky with lamps and have made them missiles for the demons. Ain't nothing about flames chasing them away. That's what some people said from the answers I searched for, in order to sidestep explaining the passage in the proper way. The lamps are the stars and they are also the missiles. It goes back to the old age mentality of stars being either stationary or "shooting stars". The disaster here is that I felt checkmated by the person who told me this passage.
  8. I rarely go to answering-christianity because you're right, it exaggerates many things to point it makes the Quran look like a science thesis from Berkeley. The article tried its best but it's again falling short, because shehab refers to shooting objects. Today, shooting objects are rocky material, not fiery material. Yet there it says fiery shehab. The tail of the comet is the one which makes it visible. I'll hand the author in trying to relate different passages together but again when it comes down to the lamps turning into missiles, he goes back to the same interpretations others have said before him, as though by rote. A gamma ray burst was a nice touch, only he didn't take into account that gamma rays do not shoot the sky rather radiate into space. Again, unfortunately, the explanations are always inaccurate from scientific points of view and also by trying so hard to make the sentence look like it means something different. One thousand years ago they wouldn't be talking gamma rays, they'll just say "yeah the star is shooting across the sky when god wants it to". If they're unseen realities then good wouldn't say "we have beautified the sky with lamps", then going on to say that those same lamps which beautify the night sky will chase the demons like missiles (shooting stars - a scientific theory that became obsolete when it was discovered there's a difference between stars and rocky objects).
  9. Wow, many replies. Didn't expect that. Well thanks to everyone for replying. I think my following four replies will answer most of the comments anyway because I've read them all and they more or less say the same thing. ========================================== Haydar Husayn: From my understanding, not all Catholics pray to Mary. Some do, some don't. Many simply prefer to pray directly to their God (the trinity). Any prayer toward Mary is simply a form of intercession, not worship. If this is shirk to us then we might as well close down the Shia sect because it means we're also mushrikeen for praying to imams so that they intercede for us. There's a difference between intercession and worship and we are the last people who should confuse the two things together, seeing as we are Shia and don't have problems with people interceding our payers to god. If there are any protestants today who think catholics worship Mary, then they're just as as idiotic as the wahabis who think Shias worship the imams. Protestants are afterall literal interpreters of their faith and the wahabi and many other forms of Sunni islam are just as literal. An extreme protestant is akin to an extreme sunni so it's no surprise that there might be a few likeminded people between the two sects. I would never ask this question in a Sunni forum so I don't know why I'm getting a Sunnified answer. Praying to someone for intercession does not equal worship. The fact is Catholics and protestants only worship the deity of god in the form of the father, son and holy spirit. Anything else would be heretical to the teachings of their faith. Worshiping Mary is heresy according to the Bible because their holy texts (old and new testaments), including the canons and chronicles, made no reference to Mary's divinity. So it's heretical for starters. And if someone today is praying to Mary, which I've already heard christians tell me, then it's an intercession, not worship. Quran 10:18 is making reference to pagan Arabs who worshiped idols as form of intercession between them and the "main god". That's bizarrely different than Mary being prayed to. For god's sakes we Shia are asking imams to intercede for us. Your answer is Sunni-oriented. If praying to Mary is considered worship and shirk then basically the wahabis are right about us? We are also mushrikeen for praying to our imams? Furthermore it doesn't make sense why Allah even asks this question. We cant assume hes asking this question to prove to christians that their religion is wrong, given that their religion has no teachings of Mary being worshiped. ========================================== Lanat ma man: The collyridians were an interesting group of people but the unfortunate thing for us is they were considered heretical. They were a heretical group that ceased to exist long before prophet Mohammad was even born. If Allah is interested in discrediting christian beliefs, he should've said "Oh Jesus, why did you say to your followers: worship me and my god as same gods" instead of saying something about Mary. Imagine tomorrow a new religion comes out like a mushroom somewhere and tries to discredit Islam by making reference to the Ahmadiya sect. "Say to the Muslims: Oh Muslims, why do you believe in Mirza Gullam as your mahdi and savior". The mainstream Muslims would read that text and go "hold on, we don't believe in this. The Ahmadiya sect is a heretical sect of Islam". The argument that Allah uses to discredit christians in the Quran is an oxymoron because it's discrediting a heretical group. Also take into account that Allah explicitly says to Jesus why he told his people to "worship me and my mother as two gods". But no Biblical or canonical text ever referred to Jesus telling his people to worship Mary. There were times he hinted he was god, there were times he hinted he was god in the flesh, which led to many debates etc. But the divinity of Mary is not mentioned. So infact, Jesus never uttered those words to his followers. I'm open to the idea I'm wrong though. Also the bold part in your quote of the protestant dictionary actually dismisses the notion of Mary being worshiped, but rather honored. ========================================= Ali Hussain: The verse specifically implies that Jesus told his followers to take him and his mother as two gods besides Allah. First, where is the evidence that Jesus said this to his followers? Second, if this is only a hypothetical question Allah is posing on Jesus, why was it posed to begin with? Jesus's teachings were documented by the early Christians and regardless of any translation and any chronological manuscript, none whatsoever mentioned Jesus telling his followers to take him and his mother as gods. Of all ways for Allah to discredit Christianity, he had to use an argument against a heretical group of people, which christians largely dismissed, who were mostly present in the Syrian desert and the nearby deserts and mixed their pagan Arab beliefs with christian beliefs? Allah implied Jesus taught them, his followers, to take Mary and him as gods besides Allah. Besides Allah, therefore it's a form of worship. Taking something for your god and believing in god are not two different or independent things, they're the same thing. But let's use your argument. Let's assume "taking X as your god" and "believing X as your god" are two different concepts. You say to take Mary as goddess is basically to submit to her in humility. Submitting to something can be interpreted in many ways. People submit to Allah, therefore Allah is their god. Having said that, people also submit to their prophets and imams, but generally this is not considered worship. And then there are those who say submitting to a prophet or to god is the same thing, ie worship. But let's assume they're different submissions for a second. Which one of the submission types applies to Mary? As a status of an imam/prophet/lady Fatima, or as a status of god? Well, according to the Quran, it's as a status of god, because Allah implies that she was taken besides Allah. And if taking something as god merely means submitting to it in humility, and not worshiping its divinity, then are we taking our imams and prophet as gods aswell? Because there sure is alot of submission regarding that. And are Sunnis also taking their highly esteemed sahaba as gods as well? I think you're reading too much into this. Sometimes the simplistic answer is the correct one, because the more detailed you get into the subject, the more it can actually backfire on our own beliefs too. Furthermore, the title Mary mother of god is an honorary title for her. Yes some christians thought and probably still do that Mary is holy because she conceived god in the flesh (Jesus), presumably. But that does not grant her divinity, nor does it elevate her into the status of a god/deity. But the Quran explicitly mentions her elevation to the status which is "next to" Allah's own status, thus divine. Another problem is Mary's divination died hundreds of years before prophet Mohammad was born, although one can presume that remnants of that particular heretical group might have still existed in small pockets in the deserts of Syria, which can explain prophet Mohammad's contact with them. The books Islamic scholars wrote where they quote off and off others about practices of worshiping Mary in eastern churches are problematic aswell, because they dont seem to be mentioned by other academicians in theology, unless one is referring to the historical era of the 4th century. ========================================= Omar: I highly doubt the world of Christendom would even acknowledge the website, which you linked, as "christian". The front page of that website makes it clear the person who made it believes in a goddess who took the form of Isis, Lakhsmi and Mary and many others. Therefore that website follows a different religion altogether, combining what the author assumes to be the same goddess in the form of different people throughout history. The whole argument there is moot and I dont see its relevance to this topic. If some idiot tomorrow makes his own website about lady Fatima being a goddess, I hope nobody from the other side of the world reads it and thinks Islam believes in the divinity of Fatima.
  10. http://quran.com/5/116 There are 2 problems I find with this above passage, no matter how many times I read it. 1. Christians never believed in the deity of Mary. I could be wrong but Christianity generally believes in one god who occupies three forms in order to interact with living beings. The first form of god is his original "fatherly" form which they interpret as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. But god also takes human shape, in the form of Jesus, in order to interact with the world of his creation and the chosen people. And then there's the holy spirit which is god's presence in the world and which will last until the coming of Jesus or something like that. So basically they believe in one god who somehow has the power to be in three different forms all at the same time. Sounds farfetched but the problem is there's no Mary. Even the early Christian offshoots which denied that Jesus died and believed in non-mainstream views of Christianity never viewed Mary as a deity. So where is the Quran getting its information from? I've heard someone tell me that a particular sect of Catholicism prays to Mary, but only for intercession, which means they do not see Mary as a god. And that's not even mainstream Christianity, neither is it a form of worship toward a deity. 2. The second problem I have with this passage is that Allah is asking Jesus why he told his followers to worship him and his mother as gods. Why is Allah even asking Jesus this question in the first place? Firstly, shouldn't he know this already, which negates the whole purpose of asking the question? Secondly, isn't it paradoxical for Jesus to be handpicked by god to be his messenger but ends up betraying god by telling people to worship him and his mother instead? So not only is this passage wrong about Mary being god according to Christian views, or at least to the best of my knowledge on this subject, but it's also a paradox in the way Allah, the all-knowing, asks Jesus about something he should already know isn't true, not to mention ask a prophet of god why he decided to teach people to worship him and his mother instead, which no prophet would do in the first place if he's to be called a prophet. So it's confusing beyond belief. Can someone please help explain this passage?
  11. The problem I find is that the passage mentions lamps. "We have beautified the sky with lamps". That never referred to meteorites. Beautifying the sky with lamps inevitably refers to stars in the night sky. From the way one reads it, lamps in the sky are there to beautify the sky (act as light source) and remain fixed in their places, unless god wants to hurl one at demons in which case one of them will suddenly move and becomes a shooting star. A lamp is also a source of light. The problem is science didn't know the difference between meteorites and stars back then. They were basically the same thing. A star can either be fixed or transforms into a shooting star. This ofcourse makes no sense in modern science. But even if the Quran made the differentiation between stars and meteors (which it didn't), it still doesn't explain how this passage can refer only specifically to meteorites. That's because meteorites move and do not beautify, nor act as lighting source for the night sky, therefore the lamp cannot be associated to it.
  12. Hey Goku thanks for the effort but that still doesn't explain the extraordinary nature of that passage. In the Arabic text, lamps are stars, not separated from meteorites. And these stars can move and shoot around. So apparently there is no difference between the stars and the meteors. That difference only came later, through scientific understanding. But the passage itself makes no difference between the stars and meteors and also doesn't take into account why these objects move. They move for other reasons, which science is showing, not for chasing demons. And I don't think meteors detach from stars either.
  13. Hello members of Shiachat. Been a long time. I have a question regarding this passage: http://quran.com/67/5 How can one explain this passage without looking bad in front of the scientific community? In Arabic, forget the beautified translation, it says that the lamps in the sky (basically the stars) are missiles intended at the demons. Honestly I never heard of this passage before. Yeah I know what you're thinking, I haven't read the whole Quran. So when somebody first mentioned this to me, I told him he was a liar. I didn't say that because I believe that Islam is true 100%. Frankly I don't know what's true. I said that because I never believed that any religious passage, from any religion, will be extremely fantastical in its analysis of the cosmos. So what am I missing here? What's the catch behind this passage? How do Muslims who read this passage not leave their faith, how do they interpret a missile chasing demons?
  14. That stupid Oglu can talk as much as he likes. How I wish Turkey make the mistake of entering Syria. They will be humiliated. They only know how to kill innocent farmers in Kurdistan, Gog-Magog scumbags. Not surprised Turkey and the west are together in this. Turkey Gog-Magog, west Dajjal, and the Arab countries that are with them are Qarn Al-Shaytan. The three evils together. Three stooge ideologies. But inshallah when Allah says enough and the time for Muhammad the Second arrives, these countries will bow down in fear of getting destroyed. And hopefully when he does come, I don't want him to forgive. I want him to destroy all those nations. I don't like Bashar Al-Assad. But I know that these revolutions are simply replacing puppets for puppets. It's the western plan to bring about a fake "Islamic"-shaped new middle east, one which would give Israel the preemptive measure to strike its neighbors by claiming "self-defense", and thereby accomplishing their expansionist agendas. Just watch if (or should I say "when") Syria and Egypt turn Salafist and begin to pose their fake threats on Israel. Golden opportunity for the Israelis to attack their neighbors, gain land, make neutral zones and those countries will humiliate Islam even more. Right now they're banking on Assad to fall. But perhaps God is with Syria. He will not let it fall like Egypt has fallen or Libya has fallen.
  15. Akritas, you're underestimating America's political hand and you're overestimating their concerns. Do you think America was ever concerned about Iraq becoming stable? That's the last thing they want to do. Who else was allowing Wahabi terrorists through Jordanian borders into the country? When Iraqi troops took over border control, they realized all the corruption that American soldiers were committed to for all these years. America wants an unstable Iraq. What better way to destabilize Iraq than to, a. Let Wahabi scumbags enter the Iraqi borders through Jordan and other countries to bomb themselves. b. Give Turkey a greenlight to hit northern Iraq and, in some cases, go as south as possible and hit even places near Tikrit. Let's be realistic. America and Turkey are making nasty Dajjal and Gog-Magog love in bed together. Both countries will suffer humiliating consequences from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, inshallah, after all the crimes they've committed. The Americans play one side off the other, as you say. But America is least concerned about the Kurdish movement. America is more concerned about keeping Turkey happy because Turkey is their channel to the Arab world and also to Iran. Turkey is also a determined anti-Russian country in modern history and their invitation to NATO wasn't a coincidence. The Kurdish threat in Turkey is a bit likened to Bin Laden's threat to Saudi Arabia. While it's true Saudi Arabia are in bed with America (Qarn Al-Shaytan and Dajjal together), America also want to make sure Saudi is controllable and always has a "villain". Bin Laden was that villain. Al-Qaeda is still their villain. Similarly, Turkey and America are in bed together, but America wants to keep Turkey in control. So they use the Kurdish issue in order to remind Turkey of the deal with the devil that Ataturk shook his hands with when he ascended to power. Anyone who thinks Ataturk was genuinely against the west is blind. The west and him put on a show and made it appear to the public that he got the Turkish people their freedom again. What ensued next was catastrophic: a secular, fascist nationalist country bent against non-Turks and bent against Islam. But I suppose Gog and Magog were eventually going to uncover their face masks and reveal their reality so I'm not really surprised by those historic events. But here is where I will not overestimate America's power. America will cower away when it sees genuine movements coming out. When they see the pressure mounting against them, they resign to a softer tone. This is always their nature. But one day whether they like it or not, the black flags will come out from Afghanistan, push their way across the west all the way to land of the Kurds. Turkey will turn into a turkey and America will switch their thinking caps on and conclude that they cannot do anything about it. As for your question about what America will do to Turkey. It's a nonexistent question. It's like asking me what the Dajjal will do to Gog and Magog. They're in the same game. But hypothetically speaking, America can kick Turkey out of NATO. Turkey without western support is like a maniac on a wheelchair. Sure he's a maniac but he won't do squat.
  16. A smart woman who loves to question everything and anything.
  17. They are pretenders and weak. The Americans are giving them this bear-like image in the region. Whenever Turkey bows down to Washington's calls and acts like the mouth of Sauron, the Americans give them their treat by letting them invade Iraq. Americans don't mind that because they want the Kurds and Iraqis in general to rely on them all the time. And they also want Turkey to rely on them. Let's just say Turkey will cower away when real independent movements emerge.
  18. No it's not clear. I'm thinking this guy is the son of one of the big families. Doubt he's a prince but I'm open to the idea that he could be. But there's nothing in the video that can prove it.
  19. In respect of those who say Kurdistan won't get independence because it can't (e.g. Turkey will get in their way), I think they're wrong. But I will say Iraqi Kurdistan doesn't need to be a fully independent country, at least not for the time being. Iraqi Kurdistan is currently a semi-autonomous region. So it's almost like a country by itself, only it's under the Iraqi umbrella. I mean think about it. They have their own flag, their own anthem if I'm not mistaken, their own regional government, Kurdish language is official language of Iraqi Kurdistan region, etc. So they're technically a "country within a country". This current state that they're in is actually the safest and best option for them. Maybe in the future it wouldn't be their best and safest option. Maybe in the future they'll reconsider gaining full independence. But in the mean time, this current Iraqi Kurdistan is their best solution. One in which the Iraqi Kurds can gain the best of both worlds. Turkey isn't going to come in their way anymore in the future. Come on who are we kidding? Turkey? The country that is the voice of Washington? Haven't you seen Lord of the Rings? In Lord of the Rings there's this weird guy called the mouth of Sauron. It's unseen footage, wasn't in the cinemas. This is Turkey's political and constitutional image. They act like the mouth of Sauron, they look like the mouth of Sauron and they're as disgusting as the mouth of Sauron. Secular fascist country bent on killing non-Turks and bent on promoting atheism that would make France's anti-hijabis cringe. But inshallah when the world sees the tide of Kurdish selfdetermination and selfawareness, the Turks will get a call from Washington DC telling them not to move an inch. That's what it's all about. One minute they tell you to move, next minute they tell you to stop. Turkey is in this game. They play by those rules.
  20. I'm sorry Islam comes before me being Shia. And Islam doesn't teach us to be biased for our own kind. It teaches us to be free and open minded and to stand with justice and truth, even it goes against your own kind's interests. I suggest a second Muhammad comes from Makkah and destroys all Islamic countries today.
  21. Lol this is hilarious. I'm being paid by a government which I don't support? You're so illogical and stupid that it ain't funny anymore. Well... less funny. :lol: :lol: I don't need you to tell me what it is I do. Go ahead and pretend that the govt of Bahrain is paying me this and that roflmao. The government of Bahrain doesn't have enough money to keep its king floating, what do they want exactly with me? :lol: The reason I got help from Shiachat admins/mods many months ago was because you insulted my mother and father, you bloody fool. For a person who's into the Shia faith, you sure know how to insult people's parents. But don't worry I won't go as low as you do. ;) Go ahead and feel better by thinking that I'm some guy getting paid by someone haha. I shall ask for my justice in the afterlife and Allah will embarrass you and Noah. To accuse me this far just because I have my own political views is about the lowest and most unIslamic action taken in this forum in a long shot. This forum has really found new lows and how am I not surprised when it is your likes who are becoming moderators. :lol: I tell you another thing. You should move along. "Yea, yea" was your only response. It shows how you lack substance, especially after Allah embarrassed you by turning you into a Wahabi and allowing you to do takfir against your brother in Islam, and not just in Islam but also a brother in a same sect. Goodluck in the next life. Al hamdullilah atleast I dont do takfir.
  22. I didn't watch the video but when you said squeaky voice I knew he was Egyptian. :lol:
  23. ======== Anyway to answer La'nat Ma Man's question. It was a rather general question. I don't know what La'nat really wanted me to answer. I think he wanted me to explain the Israeli-Iranian connection. Yes that's mostly historical and in modern times it only builds respect between the two countries. I think Israel and Iran respect each other, despite the media that blows things out of proportion. Needless to say this isn't the main reason why Israel isn't going to hit Iran or this isn't the reason why I said Iran is being directed to a certain path. It all goes back to external factors. In the ground level, there is genuine tension between Israel and Iran. Regular people feel the tension, the people who work for the government also feel it. Infact I am certain even the presidents and prime ministers of both countries have a real go at each other. But the question is who is controlling global politics. And who are the people who define a destination for every country and every economy in this world. These people dont act on the surface and frankly I dont know their names but I believe they control the military industry, the financial industry and are the main and strongest lobbyists, behind curtains, for Israeli politics and western politics and heck I wouldnt be surprised if they had a say in Iranian politics too. These said people are the real movers. They move the pieces. And regardless of the whole fiasco that is put on between both countries, the real global players see both countries in their own sights. Both are controllable, as all countries are. You might be a politician and you might know this and are going along with it because you sold your soul to the devil, or you might not know it. But regardless, you're pushed along the tide. The tide is their creation. Nobody in Iran genuinely wants tension with Israel, vice versa. Iranians arent stupid to start a war with Israel, so why should they be in tensions with a country like Israel? And tension to the point of being in a potential war? Theyll never take that risk, same applies to Israel. Its all political and tactical play. It has been for a long time. Iranians genuinely wanted a revolution in the past. Mosadeq came in for them. But for the west, it wasnt the right moment for a revolution. It was too early. And it was risky because Mosadeq wasnt a hardline religious man. When the Shah eventually got kicked out, the mullahs were given way. Did it happen consciously? I doubt Khomeini himself knew it but I think a few people around him mightve known. In any case theres a plan for Iran like theres a plan for all countries. All these plans eventually get executed. If theres one point I can come to, its that I dont think theres ever going to be a genuine Islamic country 100% void of foreign influence or foreign planning until Muhammad the Second comes out of Makkah and then all countries around him will shiver. See this trend: In the 50s and 60s, Arab countries went through revolutions that led them to secularism and nationalism, but the democracies were weak with sadness. In the 60s Iran wanted to make a revolution of its own, which was also going to be led into a secular republican country like the ones around it. The west didnt allow it to happen. They wanted to wait on Iran. When did the Iranian revolution happen? A decade later. In the 2000s and 2010s, Arab countries went through revolutions that led them to Islamism. Salafis and Ikhwanis coming to power. In 2009, Iran had a little spark. A warning shot fired that change is coming. But it was again too early. Ofcourse make it look like youre with those guys and that you want to help them but your hands are tied. Thats the western excuse. In reality youre giving Iran more time. Ten years later you'll see the change. But it will be in the opposite direction of the Arab changes. They went Islamic, now its Irans turn to go secular. Maybe 2019? Allah knows best.
  24. Don't worry. It's not going to happen. American and Israel and the whole west isn't going into any more wars. That age is over. Iran doesn't need a war anyway. There are enough economic and social problems in Iran to cause a revolution and bring about a secular nationalist Iranian country, void of religiousness. Whoever's controlling global politics will direct attention away from Iran sooner or later, and once Iranians see that they have no enemies coming at them, things will change. Either by a revolution similar to 1979 (complete overthrow of one system and replacing it with another system) or by an internal political reform (infiltrating the system and slowly changing it from within). Naaaaah. Most muslims in the west are either Indian or Iranian. Those two nations are the most peaceful in the world. Wouldnt surprise me if they lose their faiths overtime in the west, though. Iranians are hard workers. Wish I can say the same thing about us Arabs. Iranians are hard workers and they are producers and innovators. They'll always be, whether they are in Iran or outside Iran. Theyve given a lot to this world in the past and I think theyll have a golden age in the future. God probably owes it to them aswell, after all the enemies they had in the past, from Mongols to Ottomans. Well Russia is no longer communist and all ex-Soviet states. And China is fake communist to be honest with you. I think now the danger is gone, the west no longer feel the need of having Iran controlled by mullahs. The anti-communist devotion of mullahs was good but it's no longer needed in the post-communism world. Think of the 1979 revolution as reactionary and think of the mullahs as the most suitable rulers for that reaction. But like all reactionary movements, they come to an end. Yeah well thats life. There are sheep and there are wolves. Id rather be the sheep. Peace.
  • Create New...