Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Northwest in Arabization of Pakistan   
    This is the argument Christians and Jews and just about any other faith uses against Islam, and it pains me to see that the very criticism of Islam is actually being defended by some Muslims, as though it's a good thing. These defenders are nothing but material-guided people, who think that in order for them to be good muslims, they need to dress like an Arab, speak like an Arab and god knows beat their wives like Arabs too. Which pretty much negates the whole message of Islam, since Islam was most critical of the Arabs than any other nation in the world, so much that even Khuda called the A'arab the "most hypocritical and faithless". The silly Ummayads of course thought they were going to succeed into Arabizing Indo-Iranian civilizations, not taking into account that Indo-Iranians are happy with their own languages and cultures, and rightfully so. It's just a shame the Egyptians and Levantines and North Africans weren't as successful, and part of the reason behind that was their languages weren't as mainstream/big, and therefore easy targets for the filthy roddents who ruled Islam in its beginnings. And what's sad is how they blindly follow Arab nationalism today. To follow something your ancestors did not represent or were not affiliated to speaks volumes of the sad excuse that current Arabists are today. If their ancestors were to cry in their graves, they'd probably do it in shame.
    And then we have people like Maryam telling us that Arabs were in Iraq, Syria and North Africa even before Islam, which is utter tosh, and no more than just a way for the inferiority complex to rationalize the false belief that the person is "indeed" an Arab, even though the person is in reality an Arabized non-Arab.
    I mean just take a look at some of the deluded comments:
    Sound the hollywood music for crying out loud. Elohim/Allah/God/Khuda chose Arabic because the Arabs needed a good hiding and because he made a promise to Ishmael that he will send his nation a prophet.
    No Maryam, the inferiority complexes arose from Arab superiority during the early years of Islam: the biggest form of ethnic and national oppression that would make the imperialists of Europe look like amateurs. In fact, they learned a lot of things from the Arabs. It's got nothing to do with other peoples thinking their history is worse than Arabs, are you kidding me? You seriously think the Egyptians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Persians and the likes had a worse history than the Arabs? The Arabs history was nothing more than Antar and him going around the desert snatching trophy wives. Arab history only became rich with the advent of the Abbasid Caliphate, and even that was sacked like a cockroach in no time for its arrogance.
  2. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Northwest in Arabization of Pakistan   
    Maryam, you're too interested in the effects of Westernization that you use it as an excuse to justify Arabization. Neither one are good. In fact, if anything is to go by, Arabization is probably a lot worse due its tribal (hence anti-Islamic) tendencies. After all, it is Khuda (I'm going to use that word from now on) who said in Surat Al Tawba that the pure Arabs are the most hypocritical and faithless, and that they do not know the limitations or proper guidelines to which Khuda has set for them.
    Secondly, Khuda is an Indo-Iranian term to say "God". It is built on the same building blocks that other Indo-European languages use.
    English say God, Germans say Gott or Gutt, Persians say Khuda. The G is a variation of Kh and the utt or od is a variation of "uda". They're very similar.
    Seriously how deluded is your statement? Do you think Khuda cares what we call him? The only reason he's called "Allah" in Arabic is because Arabic is an Afro-Asiatic language. If you take a look at other semitic languages, such as Hebrew, you'll realize they're almost the same. I.e, Jews say Elohim, Arabs say Allah.
    This is a language issue. Whoever thinks Khuda intended for himself to be labeled as Allah is once again bringing a materialistic and earthly matter into the equation, hence he is now forming a shirk/alliance between God and a Qawm/nation. Hence your God now is an Arabic-speaking deity, and the next thing you'll tell me is the significance of camel racing in the lives of all world's people. Or better yet, the significance of the thobe, even in places like Siberia.
    Seriously people, get a grip. You're supposed to be preaching Islam, not defending Arabism or any form of Arabization. If you defend someone into Arabizing himself then you're a hypocrite for condemning someone from being Westernized. If you defend someone from turning toward a pan-nationalist movement, then you're practicing Surat Al Tawba. He who follows a group is of them. Whomsoever's interested in following Arabism because he/she feels it gets them closer to God, is henceforth admitting that his deity is incorporated into an ethnolinguistic boundary, which only means two things: A, that his god is false... Or B, that he's one of the most hypocritical and faithless, because now Surat Al Tawba refers to him.
    It is good to learn Arabic for religious means, but nothing more is needed. As for lingua francas, Arabic is one of the worst languages to behave as lingua francas. We're better off using English. Now if Arabic is essential part of learning Islam, I've got nothing against that. But to amplify the Arabic language above its limitations is a testimony to the mindset which still sadly believes in the pile of nonsense known as "Islam is Arabic".
    As for your fallacy regarding Arabic being used among philosophers and scientists during the Islamic golden age, no. The language of science during the Islamic golden age, as everyone attests to (bar the Arabs), was Persian.
    You see Maryam, you don't even know it yet you're programmed to talk like a nationalist even though I know you have no such intentions of doing so. It happens passively because that's the garbage we were having to put up with since the days we were in schools. Arab nationalism has really spread like a cancer into Islam, and ruined it, to the extent that even someone who wants to come off as an unbiased individual ends up claiming such fallacy such as "Arabic was used between scientists during the enlightenment era". What utter nonsense.
    Reminds me of that pathetic attempt by Gamal Abdulnasser in the 60s to change the name of the Persian Gulf into Arabian Gulf. Or how Arab-centric books spoke of an Arab Salah Al-Din, even though in reality he was Kurdish. Or how Arab-centric books with deep-rooted hatred to Indo-Persian culture cannot admit Ibn Sinas Persian ethnicity; instead saying nonsense such as him being Uzbek or an Arabic immigrant in Khorasan. Such nonsense and endless drivel.
  3. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Northwest in Arabization of Pakistan   
    Arabization is the filthiest doctrine that had the misfortune of spreading alongside Islam during the days of the rodent Ummayad leaders, who thought that them being Arab was in some way superior to non-Arabs around them. It lead to many non-Arab populations within the Islamic Ummah getting forced into embracing Arabization as an attempt to gain themselves more social and economic rights. It is pathetic and only a Sufyani-mindset would accept such a thing. God said "We have created you of nations and tribes so you may know each other". He didn't say "We created you of nations and tribes to Arabize each other". I agree with Marbles about the natural, organic flow between different languages and cultures. And I agree that what Wahabis are doing in Pakistani Islamic schools is a good example of modern-day attempts to continue the stench that is known as Arabization.
    And it's funny reading comments here about Arabic being the language of heaven. You don't know, nor does anyone else in this life know, what the afterlife will be like. For all we know we might be born as different beings, with different languages, or even no languages in the first place. It's rather materialistic and I personally consider it a form of shirk for someone to tell me that Arabic is 'lisan' (mother tongue) of heaven. Such idiocy I've never expected in a Shia forum, but it happens every once in a while. I suppose God to that ethno-centric mindset is nothing more than an Arabic-speaking deity, or better yet a Super Arab nationalist who dislikes uttering a single word that isn't Arabic, or even mentioned in the Quran. Let us deny ourselves any more words that we do not find in the Quran from now on, because since God didn't say Khuda in his message to Arabkind, then all of his blessings and grand design of diversifying languages out of deliberation is actually a reflection of his faults (should've never happened), and thereby rendering all Ajmi/foreign words useless.
    And then Muslims wonder to themselves why we're drenched in our own pile of mud. While other religions have various ethnic and lingual groups, Islam is evenly divided into two halves: Arabs and non-Arabs. And the greatest irony is that many of the Arabs today could still be speaking their ancestral languages and be practicing Islam at the same time, but sadly their ancestors were forced into two conversions that were wrongly mixed together (Arabism and Islamism). If we were to go by facts, over 75% of Arabs today are Arabized and have little to no affiliations with the real Arabs of the peninsula, in case Iraqis/Syrians or Egyptians or North Africans ever wondered why a Saudi poet came up with this rhyme:
  4. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from بعيد in A Wrong Quranic View On Christian Beliefs?   
    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.
  5. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from بعيد in A Wrong Quranic View On Christian Beliefs?   
    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.
  6. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from EricCartman in Do You Know That Ali (raa) Was Black-skinned   
    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
  7. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Gypsy in Allah Sends Shooting Stars As Missiles To Chase...   
    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.
  8. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Dawud1UK in Just A Small Glass Of Wine A Day Raises Cancer   
    A few years down the road another study comes out and says the opposite. It's been that way forever.
  9. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Baka in Just A Small Glass Of Wine A Day Raises Cancer   
    A few years down the road another study comes out and says the opposite. It's been that way forever.
  10. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Professor Higgins in If Asad Falls, What Will Be The Fate Of Hezbollah?   
    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.
  11. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from ishq ast abul fazl in The Perfect Woman   
    A smart woman who loves to question everything and anything.
  12. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Aarash_Australia in Iraqi Kurdistan Threatens To Declare Independence   
    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.
  13. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Aarash_Australia in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    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.
  14. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Aarash_Australia in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    You're still hurt about what I said about Arabization? You want to bring back something I spoke about many months ago? You poor thing roflmao! Persian nationalist? What a joke. I hate all forms of nationalism, don't smear me in any of it. Persians and Arabs are both pathetic. Yes, the Arab invasion of Iran was barbaric. It wasn't executed properly. I speak the truth and I take nobody's side. Im on my own side and that's all Im happy about. You are the one who needs to get lost. It amazes me how you guys claim to be shia of ahl al bayt this and ahl al bayt that, but in reality you're all biased towards your own agendas. What are you then? An Arab nationalist wannabe?
    By the way, why in the hell should I leave behind my hatred of Arabization? Of course I hate Arabization, it's the most unIslamic thing in the world. Do you even know what Arabization means?
    And why are you bringing back old issues like Bahrain and whatever? How does that prove that I'm a socalled Persian nationalist? Don't mix emotions with facts. When I say things in this forum, I say facts. When I used to say many months ago that most Arabs are originally non-Arab, that is a fact. When I say that many people got Arabized, which is wrong, that is a fact. Do you think the prophet wanted to spread Islam or wanted to colonize other people's lands and spread Arab imperialism? Do you think Islam mattered to the prophet or speaking Arabic language and wearing an Arabic robe? When Islam spread by the Ummuyads and later Abbasids, it was less concerned about Islam and more concerned about its Jahaliya ideologies, such as Arabization. And now you're defending it and asking me to leave my hatred of it? Habibi, I don't think you know me too well. I hate all forced assimilation.
    But again, what in the hell does this have to do with this topic? This topic is about Iran and a potential war, which I am almost certain wont happen because I already explained my reasons. I already explained that Israel is happy with the current situation. Politically analyzing things doesn't mean conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy to analyze Israel's political movements in the region. You people are naive. You people are being apologetic for your own biases. This has blinded most people in Islam and the world for that matter. Devote yourself only to god, take not a country's side or a sect's side or anybody's side but the side of truth and justice. And if you seek truth and justice, you'll get enlightened with all the facts in life. The fact that the Arab invasion stunk. The fact Iran, Israel and all Arab countries are in the same boat. The fact Muslims today are being biased for their own kind, but they don't mind believing in conspiracies if it's against the opposite party. That is hypocrisy.
  15. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Shamali in Iraqi Kurdistan Threatens To Declare Independence   
    Saddam was one man who was hungry for power. He didn't care if he killed his own mother. His war against the Kurds is not a representation of Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
    Sunni Arabs have always been, even culturally, the most sympathetic to the Iraqi Kurds. Sunni Arabs in Iraq have always given the Kurdish people the nickname "children of Salah Al-Din". Iraqi Shias will never give such a nickname because Salah Al-Din is hated by Shias. Saddam was one person whose quest for power oversaw everything else. He didn't mind killing his own tribesmen, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have cared if he killed Kurds or Arabs or anyone. So let's not pretend that Sunni Iraqis are suddenly in "tension" with Kurds because of one man who only believed in himself and believed in nothing else. Saddam wasn't even a Baathist or Arab nationalist. He was a Saddamist.
    As for Kurds. I think the decision should go back to them. If they want their own country, let them have it. Afterall every ethnic group has the right of selfdetermination. So let them have their own country if that is what makes them happy and their hearts in peace. I dont want people to suffer. If they think theyll suffer less if Kurdistan becomes fully independent (instead of semi independent like today), let them.
    And inshallah they wage a jihad to liberate Kurdistan in eastern Turkey from the hands of Turkish genocidal nationalists.
  16. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Lanatin in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    Well brother I think you're a good man for your latest reply. I'll lighten up. I'm sorry if I'm moody sometimes, can't help it. :lol:
    I don't wish to answer your question tonight, I'm a bit tired right now from other issues so I hope you'll understand. My theories are not going to make me friends in this forum anyway, because I do believe in a dark world ruled by satan and I believe it encompasses all countries in the world, be it dajjal nations, gog and magog nations or even qarn al shaytan nations. I have my ideas in my head and not many people will even look twice at it. Inshallah I'll answer you tomorrow brother. And yes of course the Arabs have been behind good things, especially in liberties. There was a time when the arab world was more free than other worlds. Shame to see how backward it went. I mean think about it. We should be the ones who lead technology and science. We should be the ones sending astronauts to space and mastering science, playing with human genes, curing diseases, making remarkable inventions that would stride us to a type 1 civilization or possibly type 2 civilization. We should have the silicon valleys, the best universities, the new york financial center equivalents, etc. Should be us. The stupid mongols had to destroy the glory.
  17. Like
    Mo. reacted to Professor Higgins in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    Mo., I wanna give ur post 100s thumbs-ups.
    Death to the Safavids and Sassanians.
  18. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Professor Higgins in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    I have no idea if Iranian-Americans support Ron Paul or not, but what I do know is they'll support any American politician who wants Iran's mullah regime to fall and get replaced by something secular and pro-western, without the use of warfare (and simply by other means). So if that's what Ron Paul represents then it's no wonder why/if many Iranian-Americans support him.
    All kinds of liberties, not just religious. The west is supposedly the best in economic, political and social liberties, and that's what is philosophically desired by most human beings on earth. Even the Muslim Iranians in America can agree to that.
    Better. They wont hit Iran unless they're certain it'll go 100% as planned. But they'll never hit Iran anyway.
    For the record, I'm not giving the Arabs excuse to "racially" hate Iranians. Arabs are naturally racist, otherwise they wouldn't call non-Arabs derogatory terms like "Ajam". Add that to the fact Iranians are "Aryans" and it's no surprise that Persians aren't fond of Arabs since they naturally hated the Arabs for being "savages" compared to them. So this begs the question why Iran is sucking up to Arab movements like Hamas and Hezbollah. The fact of the matter is the mullahs in Iran are trying their best to make a peaceful unity between Persians and Arabs, but it's failing, because even the mullahs's Arab allies (Hamas and Hezbollah) are secretly anti-Iranian and pan-Arabists. This is actually what's aggravating a lot of anti-mullah Iranians in America and the west. It pains them to see their country becoming friends with Arabs even though Arabs continue to show their anti-Persian racism.
    In short, Iranians and Arabs simply don't mix, no matter what Mullahs in Iran try to do and no matter what mullah-sympathizers in Lebanon and Palestine are doing. Deep down inside, no matter how hard they religiously try, Iranians and Arabs will always hate each other. Arabs will find the smallest of excuses to hate Iranians because they've hated them and were jealous of them for thousands of years. Iranians, on the other hand, will always hate Arabs because Iranians are "Aryans" and will always consider themselves superior to a bunch of "desert savages". Religion has tried to make them united but religion has failed. Plus the Arabs will always suspect Persians of being secretly friends with the Jews, and that makes them hate Persians even more. Their suspicions is because of history. Historically Persians and Jews were always friends.
    It will crumble like a sand castle, mark my words. The mullahs are weak, they don't stand a chance ruling a country unless they apply siege mentality on their people. Take the siege mentality out and they'll crumble. Become less aggressive toward the Iranians, let them know you're their friends and the mullahs will fall. Who will they use as scapegoats then? We all know the only thing keeping them up is the external aggression, which seems to be doing wonders for keeping the mullahs alive.
    It's very simple. The Israelis are applying pressure on Iran in order to keep Iran's mullah regime alive. When the 1979 revolution took place, the mullahs were in the backseat of the revolution. The revolution's front runners were the nationalists secularists. They wanted Iran to become a secular republic. This worried the westerners and Israelis. Israel did not want Iran to go in the hands of the soviet union, neither did Britain or America want that. They feared that if the Persians throw the shah out and become a secular republic, they might easily fall under soviet influence due to their border with the soviet union and their border with a communist-led Afghanistan. So they wanted to put a regime in Iran that is 100% anti-communist, even if it means they'll be anti-western and anti-Israeli as well. The best candidates for that? The mullahs.
    Now that the Arab spring is bringing in Salafi and Ikhwani governments in Egypt, Tunisia and others, this will cause future fear for Israelis. Israelis being surrounded by Arab countries that suddenly turned Islamic? Chaos for Israel.
    Israelis have been applying pressure on Iran in the diplomatic sense, which they calculatingly know will make the mullahs in Iran stronger. Because that's what Israel wants. It isn't time for Iran to go through a revolution when Israel has other countries in the region to take care of.
    Once the Arab spring settles and calms down, and once all these so called Islamist govts in the new Arab countries emerge, Israel will "remove" the pressure off Iran, thereby going easy on them and becoming less hostile. This less hostility will initiate a revolution inside Iran, once Iranians realize there will be no war and will focus on their internal problems instead. This will start a revolution, the mullahs will be kicked out, Iran becomes secular nationalist, ala India.
  19. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Murteza in Hassan Abbasi On The Consequences Of Syria's Fall   
    This is an international forum. The least you could do is offer detailed info behind what he's saying.
  20. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Professor Higgins in "israel Loves Iran"   
    Everyone knows Israel will not bomb Iran. Both countries have connections with each other. Persians and Jews have had friendship ties for thousands of years since Cyrus. It's not going to change now.
    Israel and Iran are both putting one big show in front of an audience.
  21. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Professor Higgins in If The Usa Attacks Iran...   
    Some will be against it because Iranians are the kind of people who stick together in tough times. Infact most Iranians will probably hate that their homeland is being attacked by something foreign. Iranians are very patriotic.
    On the other hand, many of those people might also quietly like it because it means there's a good chance the Islamic government falls and gets replaced by something secular or pro-western. Most Iranians want that contrary to the religious people here.
    The mullahs will regard them as traitors. The anti-Islamic Iranians will also look at Iranians in America unfavorably because, like I said, Iranians don't like getting hit by foreigners. It defies their egos. But, the anti-Islamic ones might suck it up even if they don't like it, because ultimately it means Iran will be ridden of the mullahs. So it'll be contradictory feelings.
    Lol come on. This will not happen. This isn't like Japan or WW2.
    I'm not Iranian but I hope there's no war. But I also hope this current Iranian regime falls because it caused too much trouble in the region and has involved too much of itself in the affairs of others. The Arabs don't like Iranians. This applies to majority of Arabs. When Iran meddles in the affair of Arab countries, it bothers many people and even the so called friends of Iran right now (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah) have people within their circles who are anti-Persian.
    So Iran's govt is causing trouble for nothing. It will fall in the next ten years.
    Iran and Egypt are ideological opposites. When Egypt becomes more religious, Iran will become less religious.
  22. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Barabika in What If Assad Turns Into The Sufyani?   
    I don't think Assad is gonna step down just like that. I think Syria's death toll will rise significantly, maybe reaching the hundreds of thousands.
    Merely hypothetical, what do you think?
    We know Assad has good relations with Iran and Hezbollah. We know his anti-Israeli stance is excellent. We know that. Personally I dont think the Sufyani age is near us.
    But since all you guys are saying the Sufyani will replace Assad's regime, what if it turns out to be him in the first place?
  23. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Mahdavist in Anti-iran Girl Told To Shut Up At Aim Bahrain Conf   
    I'm from Kuwait and I can safely tell you, without exaggeration, that 50%, if not more, of the socalled Arabs who live in the Gulf states (e.g. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, etc) are originally Ajam.
    Originally Persians, Lurs, Baluchis, Mazandaris (no kidding), Kurdish and Azerbaijani. And yeah we have a few Indian Kuwaitis too.
    I find it hard to believe that there are "Arabs" in Iran. And even if there "were", they will be classified into these 2 categories:
    1. Pure Arabs of Iran, who come from the tribes of Arabia. These people are very, very, very, very few in number. The Mutairi tribe's chief is Iranian. These guys consider themselves as immigrants, not native Iranians. Therefore it's expected of them to assimilate. I met a Mutairi from Iran and he told me this. He doesn't give two hoots about Arab rights in Iran because they view themselves as bilingual immigrants and their lifestyle is nomadic anyway.
    2. The second type of Arabs are also small in number, but definitely more populous than the pure Arabs of Iran. These guys aren't even bloody Arabs. They're a bunch of Arabized Persians and you can tell that by their looks. They look nothing, absol-freaking-utely nothing like the Arabs I see in the Jazeera.
    So I think this girl Arab wannabe needs to get a life. She's probably mosta3reba, which makes her second-class Arab, like 75% of the population of the Arab world. Gotta feel sorry for her, as she's clueless about her real origins and she thinks the Mutairis et al of Iran are crying tears for recognition... as if, they're already recognized and fairly happy with Iranian lifestyle. The guy I spoke to, his cousin was proud of throwing a grenade at Iraqis in Abu Khaseb.
  24. Like
    Mo. reacted to south-lebanon in What If Assad Turns Into The Sufyani?   
    I dont know much about the sufyani, but isnt' he someone that decieves the muslims into thinking he is a true, honest and religious leader but then he turns out to be an imposter?, So if thats the case, why isnt anyone pointing the finger at the Turkish prime minister Erdogan. hasn't he aqurired a massive amount of support in the last few years because of his so-called religious stance and his pro resistance stance against Israel, didn't even Sayed Hassan Nasrallah call him following the Gaza raid "Ya Tayib" (which is a cmpliment in Arabic which obviously sound like his first name). Now Erdogan has shown his true colours by opposing the only government resistance in the Arab world that opposes Israel, while he still supports governments who are more oppresive and more Autocratic than Syria.
    Meanwhile see what Turkey is doinig to the Kurds and noone cares about them, Just like how noone cared about how the zionist brutaly put down any Palestinian resistance.

  25. Like
    Mo. got a reaction from Gepetto_Zapata in The Manner They Killed Gaddafi   
    What do you think about the manner the Libyan rebels used to kill Gaddafi? I think it was despicable.
    No matter what, he should have been taken to trial, found guilty and then executed in a more respectable way.
    The manner they killed him was savage-like. I'm not saying he didn't have it coming but the rebels could have been smarter.
  • Create New...