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
Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Why Ja'faari mathab must be propagated in Egypt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam Joradan , Kuwait and Qatar are claiming that are neutral anyway Qatar until now supports Iran more than KSA but Jordan has vague state about all sides that even has good relation with Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a wider conflict I think Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan would definitely be drawn in. The U.S. also has bases in the ex-USSR Stans, many of which have religious, language and ethnic ties to Iran, so likely they could get drawn in as well.

So assessments of their status would be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said previously in an other posts as a Shia I didnt have very nice experience with the few Muslim egyptians I met. Among the four I met two were indifferent to my belief in Shia Islam but among the two others one tried to convert me to sunnism while the other one was a real nassibi who said some stuffs like " I am really happy that Saudi arabia bomb yemen and is pouring Shia blood here".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Among the four I met two were indifferent to my belief in Shia Islam but among the two others one tried to convert me to sunnism while the other one was a real nassibi who said some stuffs like " I am really happy that Saudi arabia bomb yemen and is pouring Shia blood here".

All the more reason for the true teachings of Ahlul Bayt as to reach Egypt.

The average Masry in the local "awha" (coffee shop) thinks Shia believe Imam Ali is the final messenger - na'uthu billah

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump lauds Sisi, says he is 'not concerned' with demonstrations in Egypt

'Egypt has a great leader; he's highly respected,' US president says of his Egyptian counterpart
trump_sisi_reuters_0.jpg?itok=DinkHrqx
Sisi blames 'political Islam' for 'lack of stability' in the region (Reuters)

Sisi said the frequency of his meetings with Trump reflect the strong relationship between Cairo and Washington and the personal rapport between the two leaders.

"Allow me here to note my strong admiration to the president and his wisdom in dealing with military option as a last option in regards to the crisis," he said, apparently referring to the stand-off between the US and Iran.

Trump calls Egypt's Sisi his 'favorite dictator.'

I believe the United States should stand for human rights, especially with governments that receive large amounts of US aid, as Egypt does. All people have the right to protest for a better future. Sisi should respect that right. https://t.co/EP7DccjTMU

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 22, 2019

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/Trump-lauds-sisi-says-he-not-concerned-demonstrations-egypt

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-United States-Trump-egypt/Trump-backs-egypts-sisi-in-face-of-some-protests-back-home-idUSKBN1W82LV

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/08/Donald-Trump-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-egypt-226579

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/Trump-praises-el-sisi-concerned-egypt-protests-190924052744456.html

A whistleblower's video testimonies criticising Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi have triggered an online movement calling for the departure of the general-turned-president. 

But Sisi seemed to confirm Ali’s claims in his latest public remarks on the allegations, saying that his government had been building new palaces for the sake of Egypt, not for himself. He did not refute any of Ali’s claims.

“Yes, I have built presidential palaces, and will continue to do so. I am creating a new state; nothing is registered with my name, it is built for Egypt.”

Allegations against Sisi

In a series of videos posted on Facebook and YouTube since 2 September, Ali began by accusing top army generals of failing to pay him millions of dollars for a number of projects his company built in collaboration with the army.

While demanding to be paid around 200 million Egyptian pounds ($12 million), he revealed the purported budgets of several projects overseen by the army and implemented by his company.

Ali worked with the army long before Sisi became president.

In one video, Ali claims that Sisi ordered the building of a new luxury house for his family in the middle-class Hilmiya district in Cairo once he was appointed defence minister by late president Mohammed Morsi in 2012.

The cost of the project, he said, eventually cost 60 million ($6m in 2012).

After he became president, Sisi allegedly ordered the construction of a new presidential residence in a seaside resort in Alexandria, with a cost of 250 million Egyptian pounds ($15m) despite the existence of an old presidential rest house in the same area.

Other palaces built by Sisi include the new headquarters of the presidency in the new administrative capital and the summer presidential palace currently under construction in the new Alamein city, located 120 km west of Alexandria.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/Mohammed-Ali-businessman-who-challenged-egypts-sisi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

How about we should spread the correct madhab in order to save people's afterlife and please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and not to achieve geopolitical revolutionary goals?

You should do that, update us in a week on how its going ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

How about we should spread the correct madhab in order to save people's afterlife and please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and not to achieve geopolitical revolutionary goals?

Salam I understand very well what you mean dear brother but don’t you think that both could be something great or at least doing well one of this action could help to perform the other action ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

You should do that, update us in a week on how its going ok?

Fine, but only after your dreams of "uniting the ummah" and "liberating the oppressed" come true. Yea?

4 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Salam I understand very well what you mean dear brother but don’t you think that both could be something great or at least doing well one of this action could help to perform the other action ?

alaykum al salam

I don't see a use in using our madhab as a political tool simply so Iran has more "influence" and becomes more powerful. I feel like every country should be happy with its own borders, size, population, and resources, I don't see the point in creating an Empire or a superstate where you have political clout everywhere. That's what America does. We don't need to be like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Fine, but only after your dreams of "uniting the ummah" and "liberating the oppressed" come true. Yea?

Soon brother, Gods plan will be done whether you want it or not, we will prepare the grounds for al Mahdi(ajf) as you complain about how we do it while you do nothing yourself.

You can say what you want but at the end of the day nobody is in need of your support or help in any regard and what will happen, will happen regardless of your opinion on it.

Now lets watch as you derail a thread about shiism in egypt into a thread about WF and Iran.

Edited by Soldiers and Saffron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Soon brother, Gods plan will be done whether you want it or not, we will prepare the grounds for al Mahdi(ajf) while you complain about how we do it while you do nothing yourself.

You don't write plans for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). You are not preparing ground for anything.

1 minute ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

You can say what you want but at the end of the day nobody is in need of your support or help in any regard and what will happen, will happen regardless of your opinion on it.

Yes, please tell me more about how your predictions and fantasies will come true. This might be news to you, but there is no narration commanding us to build some sort of a superstate for the Mahdi (عليه السلام) under the pretext of "preparing ground".

4 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Now lets watch as you derail a thread about shiism in egypt into a thread about WF and Iran.

Not sure where I derailed the thread. I'm pretty sure what I said was quite relevant to the content in the opening post. Had you read it, you will have seen it mentions one of the reasons why spreading tashayyu in Egypt is good is because Iran will benefit geopolitically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

You don't write plans for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). You are not preparing ground for anything.

I don’t write plans for Allah? Woah, good thing you told me that, now I know the truth. Obviously you misunderstand what is being said when its suitable.

49 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Yes, please tell me more about how your predictions and fantasies will come true. This might be news to you, but there is no narration commanding us to build some sort of a superstate for the Mahdi (عليه السلام) under the pretext of "preparing ground".

We should sit with our arms crossed and complain like you instead. I can read between your lines when you say "pretext", why don’t you speak fankly instead and call ayatollah Khamenei a munafiq like your thinking?

As I said; nobody is in need of your support or even help, you are in no position of power or authority to do anything about anything, so stick to crossing arms and complaining, people like you are like wolves without teeth.

49 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Not sure where I derailed the thread. I'm pretty sure what I said was quite relevant to the content in the opening post. Had you read it, you will have seen it mentions one of the reasons why spreading tashayyu in Egypt is good is because Iran will benefit geopolitically. 

Any country who has a religion will benefit from other countries adopting their religion. Nowhere in the OP did he mention WF, yet here you are, bringing it up and ranting about it once again. Very predictable and very boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:13 AM, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Look at the success of Shia Islam in Africa's most populated country - Nigeria. Practically non-existent 30 years ago, now there are at least 3 million Shia today thanks to a gradual and consistent mission in teaching the message of Ahlul Bayt there, largely by Sheikh Zakzaky.

Actually Zakzaky is harshly persecuted by nigerian government and his movement had been criminalised. So I am very pessimist for the future of Shia Islam in Nigeria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

 

alaykum al salam

I don't see a use in using our madhab as a political tool simply so Iran has more "influence" and becomes more powerful. I feel like every country should be happy with its own borders, size, population, and resources, I don't see the point in creating an Empire or a superstate where you have political clout everywhere. That's what America does. We don't need to be like them.

Iran is actually representing Shia Islam. So Iran having more influence and becoming more powerful will help shiism. By the way you say that we must be happy with our actual borders ? You mean borders created by french and british ? Personnaly I don’t think that before Qaem (عليه السلام) come we could unificate Muslim countries but at least we could try to unificate some of them or at least performing relations between them.

Edited by Mohammadi_follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

How about we should spread the correct madhab in order to save people's afterlife and please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and not to achieve geopolitical revolutionary goals?

Why not both? And since when is politics, or anything else for that matter separate from Deen? 

Furthermore, we can see potential implications of other sects or interpretations taking over unchecked, as we have seen in parts of Iraq and Syria. It affects fellow Shias too.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Actually Zakzaky is harshly persecuted by nigerian government and his movement had been criminalised. So I am very pessimist for the future of Shia Islam in Nigeria.

Since when does facing oppression and injustice, or martyrdom hamper Shia Islam? If anything such things help embolden it.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iranian revolution had a huge impact on every single Shi'I in the world. I've spoken to a few Indo-Pak Shi'as and they all say that the sizable population of Shi'as in their countries were largely irreligious and almost completely 'cultural' Shi'as. During the revolution and afterwards during the Iran-Iraq war, people became more and more aware of their beliefs and started learning what Shi'a Islam is all about.

One of the reasons Saddam invaded was also because of fear of this influence. Aal Sa'ud was scared out of their socks for their largely marginalized Shi'a population seeing the success of Iran's revolution and trying to follow in their path. Yet the revolution succeeded miraculously even though literally every major country in the world was against it and helped Saddam to crush it.

Before the Iranian revolution, Shi'as around the world were the poorest or most oppressed people in their regions who had no hope for a better future. Whether it was the farmers of South Lebanon or those in slums of Baghdad, the surrounded city of Parachinar or the oppressed Hazara people, every Shi'a that feels their life is in danger today can now seek asylum in Iran. If there was no Iranian revolution, it's probably safe to say there would barely even be a handful of Shi'as in Nigeria, the Sayyeda Zainab mosque would be destroyed by now, a portion of Lebanon would be annexed by Israel, and the Ba'athist wouldn't allow any religious travels to the mosques in Iraq and prominent Shi'as would be hunted down and disappeared like they have for decades. Before the revolution, Shi'as had no voice in the international arena. Whether Shi'as today disagree with Iranian politics or religious views, we all owe a huge debt to the Iranian revolution for so much.

As for Egyptians, they're definitely less intolerant than certain Khaleejis. It's quite hard for Iran to do much in the Arab world countries that don't have much of a Shi'a population without them accusing Iran of "meddling in our internal affairs." So I don't know how much Iran has a hand in Egypt. Maybe the Egyptians that do convert to Shi'a Islam do so out of their own convictions. But if it starts growing to the point where they're getting noticed, I'd expect they'll be banned from practicing in Egypt or we'll see more Hassan Shehata incidents. Inshallah more people find the truth on their own.

Edited by Jaabir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I don’t write plans for Allah? Woah, good thing you told me that, now I know the truth. Obviously you misunderstand what is being said when its suitable.

You're the one who is talking about preparing ground for the Mahdi (عليه السلام) and the "plan of Allah ((سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى))*. Well, where is your proof that this is the plan of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? You are just saying stuff without evidence.

10 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

We should sit with our arms crossed and complain like you instead. I can read between your lines when you say "pretext", why don’t you speak fankly instead and call ayatollah Khamenei a munafiq like your thinking?

No one sits with their arms crossed and does nothing except the fool. I don't agree with your idea of "work". 

10 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Any country who has a religion will benefit from other countries adopting their religion. Nowhere in the OP did he mention WF, yet here you are, bringing it up and ranting about it once again. Very predictable and very boring.

Maybe you didn't read the opening post.

Quote

In Shaam you have Syria- in specifically Damascene demographics are changing with enforcements of Shia to protect Iranian interests and the shrine of Zainab (عليه السلام).

There of course is South Lebanon, home to Hezbollah.

To Saudi's south the Zaidi hold much of Yemen's north and the capital and are increasingly adopting Twelver practises like mass observation of Ghadir and Ashura and being part of the regional Axis of Resistance.

That leaves the Arab world's most populated country, Egypt to the West.

Of course propagation would be firecely resisted, if not violently.

But there must be an active, patient, consistent if not covert way of gradually reaching out to the masses there.

Perhaps a website or satellite channel dedicated to teach the people of Egypt. Certainly using social media for propagation among the youth.

Saudi can then be truly surrounded, the way they and their Gulf allies along with US attempt to surround Iran in the Gulf. 

Basically, using tashayyu as a tool to protect and further Iranian interests, goals and perspectives. 

Basically, using tashayyu as a tool to protect and further Iranian interests, goals and perspectives. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Iran is actually representing Shia Islam. 

Iran represents Iran. Not Shi'a Islam. That's the problem with some of the members here, they think Iran is a special country. A nation above nations. A nation chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

9 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

So Iran having more influence and becoming more powerful will help shiism. 

A strong Iran is good for Shi'as, but I fail to see why an expansionist Iran is good for Shi'as. 

9 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

By the way you say that we must be happy with our actual borders ? You mean borders created by french and british ?

Not my words, that's the words of the current Iranian President and foreign minister. And it is strange you attack the borders on the basis of them being designed by the Brits and the French, so tell me do you believe in a borderless world? Where is the border of Iraq? Where is the border of Syria?

10 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Personnaly I don’t think that before Qaem (عليه السلام) come we could unificate Muslim countries but at least we could try to unificate some of them or at least performing relations between them.

You can only unify nations or secede territory when the general population agrees to this, not when it is imposed on them. 

9 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Why not both? And since when is politics, or anything else for that matter separate from Deen? 

Politics is part of Islam, but the onus is on you to prove that whatever Iran is doing is Islamic. 

9 hours ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Furthermore, we can see potential implications of other sects or interpretations taking over unchecked, as we have seen in parts of Iraq and Syria. It affects fellow Shias too.

Based on my observation, the current trend in the Arab world is to be against any sect taking over, there is a move against Islamism and sectarianism, and in the case of Iraq, there is a push towards nationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Not my words, that's the words of the current Iranian President and foreign minister. And it is strange you attack the borders on the basis of them being designed by the Brits and the French, so tell me do you believe in a borderless world? Where is the border of Iraq? Where is the border of Syria?

Salam both of them could be inside Iran border because both of them separated from Iran by Ottomans & Brits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egyptian are breaking wall of fear in Egypt 

1ccd5d424c9d6e6340acc43464fee1ae_448.jpgleave (Sisi)

https://fa.abna24.com/news/کاریکاتور/کاریکاتور-دیوار-ترس-مصری‌ها-فرو-ریخت_758326.html

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

wa alaykum al salam

Iraq and Syria are part of Iran? LOL

historically west of Asia to Palestine were a part of Iran that were battle ground of  Romans & Iranians &current Iraq & Syria created by british agents after fall of ottomans to stop them from joining to Iran.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

historically west of Asia to Palestine were a part of Iran that were battle ground of  Romans & Iranians &current Iraq & Syria created by british agents after fall of ottomans to stop them from joining to Iran.

habibi Britain helped Reza Shah to power after WW1 and he allowed British troops to invade Ottoman Iraq through Khuzestan. And then the Brits helped him defeat the Arab rebels in Khuzestan, and get rid of Khazal's rule over it.

As for "historically", historically this was all under the control of the Arabs after Islam:

Umayyad750ADloc.png

But this is all meaningless. We don't need to go back a thousand years to prove who controls who. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Iran represents Iran. Not Shi'a Islam. That's the problem with some of the members here, they think Iran is a special country. A nation above nations. A nation chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

A strong Iran is good for Shi'as, but I fail to see why an expansionist Iran is good for Shi'as. 

Not my words, that's the words of the current Iranian President and foreign minister. And it is strange you attack the borders on the basis of them being designed by the Brits and the French, so tell me do you believe in a borderless world? Where is the border of Iraq? Where is the border of Syria?

You can only unify nations or secede territory when the general population agrees to this, not when it is imposed on them. 

Politics is part of Islam, but the onus is on you to prove that whatever Iran is doing is Islamic. 

Based on my observation, the current trend in the Arab world is to be against any sect taking over, there is a move against Islamism and sectarianism, and in the case of Iraq, there is a push towards nationalism.

The Islamic Republic Of Iran is not equal Shia Islam and this is not what I was trying to say. However Iran is nowadays the only country in the world which have for official religion Shia Islam and pretends to rule according to these principles. So even if we don’t like it Iran represents Shia Islam nowadays and this is even more true when we know that most Shia communities in the world endorse the kind of governement we have in Iran (actually this is only among Shia iraqis that I saw many criticism). 

About "expansionist" Iran I would say that depend what you mean by "expansionist". Actually Iran don’t want to annex Arab countries for recreate a persian empire contrary to what some idiots try to pretend. Such scenarios would never work and most iranians themselves would not even wanting that. However this is good to expand the motives and ideology of iranian revolution in other countries if people want it for struggling against oppressors. This is me here where I don’t understand why that would be wrong for Shias to be for it.

I never said by the way that I am against borders and I want a borderless world. I just said I found weird to be proud of borders building by british and saying such frontiers must never be redrawing like they had always been here. For Arab countries I don’t know and I would say this is not my bussinesse but me for exemple I would love to see persian speaking territories joining Iran if possible (and if they want if of course !).

By the way I think this is better for Iraq to move toward nationalism more than sectarianism. Because after all this country is 60% Shia and 40% Sunni. If never one of this religion say we must rule only according to his own understanding of religion that would be the chaos. However I would maybe prefer that Iraqi laws become more inspired by Islamic principles than secular laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

As for "historically", historically this was all under the control of the Arabs after Islam:

it was under control of Muslims &at Abbasid era their main viziers & advisers except few ones from Iranians &Turks that were controlling kingdom on their name &only kings were Arabs anyway we are talking about Egypt not Iraq if you want to make it another Iran-Iraq war create another thread for it also want to reminde you that we overthrown Pahlavi monarch that created by Great Britain &now we have opposite regime of it that is against all British-American Zionism but it seems until now you doesn'trecognize it. :book::sign_war:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it was under control of Muslims &at Abbasid era their main viziers & advisers except few ones from Iranians &Turks that were controlling kingdom on their name.

Brother you completely missed the point. I don't care about how the borders looked 1,000 years ago, I care about now. Historically different people controlled different pieces of land, Arabs had their Empire, Persians had their Empire, Mongolians, Egyptians etc.. it doesn't matter. What matters is now.

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

The Islamic Republic Of Iran is not equal Shia Islam and this is not what I was trying to say. However Iran is nowadays the only country in the world which have for official religion Shia Islam and pretends to rule according to these principles. So even if we don’t like it Iran represents Shia Islam nowadays and this is even more true when we know that most Shia communities in the world endorse the kind of governement we have in Iran (actually this is only among Shia iraqis that I saw many criticism). 

Brother slogans mean nothing. We have never been a religion of slogans. Saying you rule by Shi'a Islam doesn't mean much, that's just words.

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

About "expansionist" Iran I would say that depend what you mean by "expansionist". Actually Iran don’t want to annex Arab countries for recreate a persian empire contrary to what some idiots try to pretend. Such scenarios would never work and most iranians themselves would not even wanting that. However this is good to expand the motives and ideology of iranian revolution in other countries if people want it for struggling against oppressors. This is me here where I don’t understand why that would be wrong for Shias to be for it.

I'm sorry but that's far from the truth. Iran picks and chooses who is an oppressor based on political interest. One day Turkey and Qatar were big enemies of Iran, but now they are friends. Why? Because they have an issue with Saudi and UAE. To me that shows that there is no principled stance against "oppression".

The point of the expansion is to be the most powerful nation in the Middle East.

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I never said by the way that I am against borders and I want a borderless world. I just said I found weird to be proud of borders building by british and saying such frontiers must never be redrawing like they had always been here. For Arab countries I don’t know and I would say this is not my bussinesse but me for exemple I would love to see persian speaking territories joining Iran if possible (and if they want if of course !).

 

Like I said they can only be redrawn with the support of the populas.

2 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

By the way I think this is better for Iraq to move toward nationalism more than sectarianism. Because after all this country is 60% Shia and 40% Sunni. If never one of this religion say we must rule only according to his own understanding of religion that would be the chaos. However I would maybe prefer that Iraqi laws become more inspired by Islamic principles than secular laws.

Exactly why it is dangerous for Iran to expand into Iraq. Iraq is not a super majority Shi'a state, Iraq has different ethnicities and sects that constitute a significant part of the population. Yoy can never have a Shi'a Islamic Iraq.

So to expand in such a way only pushes sectarianism and disunity in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 

Brother slogans mean nothing. We have never been a religion of slogans. Saying you rule by Shi'a Islam doesn't mean much, that's just words.

I'm sorry but that's far from the truth. Iran picks and chooses who is an oppressor based on political interest. One day Turkey and Qatar were big enemies of Iran, but now they are friends. Why? Because they have an issue with Saudi and UAE. To me that shows that there is no principled stance against "oppression".

The point of the expansion is to be the most powerful nation in the Middle East.

Like I said they can only be redrawn with the support of the populas.

Exactly why it is dangerous for Iran to expand into Iraq. Iraq is not a super majority Shi'a state, Iraq has different ethnicities and sects that constitute a significant part of the population. Yoy can never have a Shi'a Islamic Iraq.

So to expand in such a way only pushes sectarianism and disunity in the country. 

This is not just words this is facts. We have shiism as official religion and we base our laws according to it and I don’t really know what I could say more.

Well I don’t really understand what you are saying about Turkey, Iran and Turkey have good relations. Excepted about syrian issue where there are some disagreements both countries have good relations and personally I didnt dislike Erdogan and I find him very useful to fight against PKK terrorists. As for Qatar I would say your argument is not really good honnestly. Because they were opressors when they helped to bomb Yemen and armed terrorists in Syria but now they do neither of these actions so I have no problem to be allied with them (I am not stupid by the way I know very well they did that at the first place because Saudis changed their mind about them but anyway if they don’t came back again to their position I have no problem to be with them and unfortunately we must also be sometimes be allied with the least worst you know).

I don’t see the problem to wanting to be the most powerful nation in Middle East.

Yes this is why I said I would be for it IF they would agree to do that.

About Iraq this is not because Iran try to have influence here that the country is in such situation. This is not Iran which organized a referendum for independance in Kurdistan as far as I know. Maybe Iraq is not supposed to be a country and must be separated in three different countries after all. This last sentence could shock you but believe me or not this is not at all my point of view. This is what I heard from some iraqis from all ethnicities and religions !

Edited by Mohammadi_follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 We have never been a religion of slogans.

You sure?

Quote

A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a clan, political, commercial, religious, and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose, with the goal of persuading members of the public or a more defined target group.

Labayk Ya Hussain

Man kunto maula, fa hatha Ali maula

La fata ila Ali wa la saif ila dhulfiqar

Hal min nasir yansura

Ya Thar Allah wa ibn Tharih

In modern times:

Kul yawm Ashura wa kul ard Karbala (whether you agree or not, it is popularly used)

Among Indo-Pak Shia:

:NH:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

This is not just words this is facts. We have shiism as official religion and we base our laws according to it and I don’t really know what I could say more.

That doesn't mean much. Anyone can just put whatever as their official religion. Can they back it up though?

As far as Shari'ah goes, Iran has actually implemented very little and is quite liberal. Iran knows a strict implementation of Shari'ah will lead to international problems with Western nations (especially Europe) and most Iranians are probably against that anyway.

44 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Well I don’t really understand what you are saying about Turkey, Iran and Turkey have good relations. Excepted about syrian issue where there are some disagreements both countries have good relations and personally I didnt dislike Erdogan and I find him very useful to fight against PKK terrorists.

Erdogan is still an oppressor who currently illegally occupies Syrian and Iraqi territory. He also finances and shelters terrorists in Syria and Iraq who have killed thousands of people many of whom are Shi'a civilians. You ask me who is worse, Erdogan or MbS? I say same murderous garbage.

And remember Erdogan is part of NATO alliance.

44 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

As for Qatar I would say your argument is not really good honnestly. Because they were opressors when they helped to bomb Yemen and armed terrorists in Syria but now they do neither of these actions so I have no problem to be allied with them (I am not stupid by the way I know very well they did that at the first place because Saudis changed their mind about them but anyway if they don’t came back again to their position I have no problem to be with them and unfortunately we must also be sometimes be allied with the least worst you know).

Qatar has never ceased supporting terrorists in Syria or anywhere else. Qatar continues to destablise the Middle East and let me remind you that Aljazeera Arabic is still running anti-Shi'a and even anti-Iran propaganda.

And may I also remind you that Qatar houses the most important US base in the region. Any attack on Iran will be conducted from Qatar:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/deploys-22-stealth-fighters-qatar-Iran-tensions-190629063530291.html

As far as Iran being the most powerful, I personally don't care who is the most powerful as long as they don't use that power on me.

And as far as the partition of Iraq goes, any Iraqi who supports that is a traitor. My main point is Iran should not back a "Shi'a party" in Iraq, Shi'a parties are part of the problem when it comes to sectarianism.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

You sure?

Labayk Ya Hussain

Man kunto maula, fa hatha Ali maula

La fata ila Ali wa la saif ila dhulfiqar

Hal min nasir yansura

Ya Thar Allah wa ibn Tharih

In modern times:

Kul yawm Ashura wa kul ard Karbala (whether you agree or not, it is popularly used)

Among Indo-Pak Shia:

:NH:

All of that means nothing if the intention and imaan isn't genuine habibi. Without the niyyah, you become a parrot. Insha Allah everyone's amaal is accepted brò. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...