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

The Iranian-Muslim viewpoint of Zoroastrianism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Selam alaycom,

Br waiting, you seem to have got up on the wrong side of the Gulf today!!  Your blantant display of hatred for arabs is getting annoying. I think you are a bit paranoid in your feelings towards your 'enemies'. Not all arabs are enemies of Iran and Iranians, nor do they have control over what their leaders (emirs etc) do.  The Prohet (pbuh) was kind and attracted people due to his good manners. If he had been harsh (like you often are) people would have run away from him. Just some friendly advice.

Peace,

Um Ali

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't many people run from the Prophet hence he conquered many lands with the sword?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I see as the basic problem driving this whole thread is defining a nation by its' majority religion. Indeed some nations wish to be defined that way. I have read the term "Christian America" in this thread several times. Is the majority of Americans Christian?, without a doubt but is the govern an instrument of any Christian sect or Christianity as a whole?, the answer is a resounding NO. We as any other society have our individuals with extreem personalities but these people in no way represent any kind of a concensous of Americans.

My friend Satyam remarked about reincarnation in lower life forms relative to Sanatana Dharma, I don't like the term Hindu because it identifies an ethnic group rather than a religious philosophy. I can't say that I agree with being reincarnated into lower life forms but the effects of karma are indeed to cause spiritual maturation.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

satyaban,

although man is the highest form of evolution and it is very hard for a soul to "devolve" ..it is not without precedences. u keep incurring bad karma and who knows what will happen.

btw, i came upon this piece.

iranians, pl comment.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.3/pocha.html

Iran’s Other Religion

Jehangir Pocha

In Search of Zarathustra

Paul Kriwaczek

Alfred A. Knopf, $25 (cloth)

A distinct staccato sound of chiseling echoes down a narrow alley in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz. Seated around a mass of black stone, a group of young Muslim men are shaping a Farohar—a winged angel from another time, and faith, than their own. “The Farohar is from our past . . . it is a symbol of our greatness,” one of the men says haltingly when I ask him for an explanation. He is referring to one of the most secretive and ineffable aspects of modern Iran, or Persia as it was called until 1936.

Despite the tendency to see Iran as an Islamic monolith and the attempts of the ruling clerics in Tehran to cast it as such, the full complexity of Iranian identity is little understood and almost never discussed—even by Iranians themselves. Long before it was absorbed into the Islamic empire by Arab armies under Caliphs Umar and Uthman in the mid-seventh century, Persia had been the birthplace of Zarathustianism, or Zoroastrianism, the world’s first monotheistic religion.The religion was forged some 3,500 years ago around the philosopher-prophet Zarathustra’s teachings, which emphasized personal morality and a conscious choice between good and evil. From a vision he had while wandering the hills of Iran, Zarathustra Spitama preached that there was only one universal god of good, whom he called Ahura Mazda. In opposition stood the power of Ahriman, the “un-good”—an ancient forerunner to Satan.

Zarathustra taught that the challenge of life is to develop a “good mind,” (Spenta Manyu), reject the “un-good mind” (Angre Manyu), and embrace a life of good thought, good words and good deeds (Humata, Hukta, Havarsta), which locates the individual’s ethical choices at the center of spirituality.

    Listen to the best things with your ears

    Reflect upon them with clear thought.

    And choose between the two ways of thinking.

    At the world’s end

    He, of holier spirit, that chooses the Right . . .

    And shall inherit the Best existence.

    He that follows the Lie and chooses the worst

    Shall inherit the worst existence . . .

    If you choose wrongly and rush to violence

    You enfeeble the world of men.

    If the right choice is made

    Then, in the hereafter, all shall be well.

    [Free translation from the Gathas, or Songs of Zarathustra, section 3:2]

In his comparative study of world religions, Max Weber claimed that the Zoroastrian dualism of good and evil represents one of three coherent solutions to the problem of evil, the others being the Indian doctrine of karma and the Calvinist idea of predestination. And theologians generally agree that Zarathusti notions of monotheism, heaven and hell, and the messiah and the apocalypse spread quickly and profoundly influenced Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

When Paul Kriwaczek writes in his new book In Search of Zarathustra that in Iran, “in spite of everything, Zarathustra still lives,” he is not simply referring to the 60,000-odd surviving Zarathustis in Iran, who have nurtured the religion through 13 centuries of Islamic persecution. (There are also about 60,000 Zarathusti Parsees in India and about 35,000 Zarathustis worldwide, of which about 25,000 are in North America, including the conductor Zubin Mehta and the novelist Rohinton Mistry.) Kriwaczek is interested in something less visible. Part history, part travelogue, the book is an exploration of an ancient religion and its persistent influence in the modern world. With a remarkable blend of intellectual insight and respect for both faiths, Kriwaczek examines how the Zarathusti Persian ethos was transmuted into Islamic Iranian life.

*  *  *

When the Arabs conquered Zarathusti Persia in 641 C.E., it had been one of the world’s military and cultural superpowers for more than a millennium. Playing off Herodotus’s colorful accounts of Persian history, Kriwaczek tells how in 559 B.C.E. a shepherd named Cyrus united the Persian tribes to overthrow Babylon and establish the Persian Empire, the largest the world had known until that time. It stretched from the Indus in India to the Nile in Egypt. But Cyrus’s empire entered into the historical realm as much for its new, humanistic conception of the world as for its military prowess.

From Cyrus the Great’s tranquil tomb in his now abandoned capital at Pasargad and the magnificent ruins of Persepolis, Kriwaczek narrates how Cyrus’s coming had been foretold by the Jewish priests who saw him as a messianic figure. In the Old Testament the Jewish prophets called Cyrus “God’s chosen . . . the Anointed One,” the one who would free the people from slavery. (my comments: is it true?)

The young shepherd kept that promise. After defeating the Babylonians, Cyrus freed the Jews they had enslaved and rebuilt the first temple in Judah. He proclaimed his subjects free to worship their own gods and ruled his lands with a secular and liberal code, perhaps the world’s first universal declaration of human rights. A replica of the cylinder on which this was inscribed is kept at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York.

Cyrus’s Achaemenian dynasty (550–330 B.C.E.) also allowed local kings and nobles to govern their original realms, albeit under Persian suzerainty. All this was unprecedented; centuries later Hegel would proclaim Cyrus’s realm “the world’s first real empire . . . where one race encompasses many peoples but these people preserve their individuality in the light of the unifying rule.” (Americans might be surprised to learn that the seven-pointed halo which guilds the Statue of Liberty is linked to Mithra, a Zarathusti archangel of good governance.)

When the dynasty finally succumbed, most Zarathusti Persians converted to Islam. A few went underground, and some, including my ancestors, fled to India, where they maintained their original faith against overwhelming odds. (The community came to be known as the Parsees, or ones from Pars, the Persian name for the fabled capital Persepolis.)

The broad swath of modern history generally sees the collapse of the Persian Empire as the classical demise of one civilization at the hands of another, more powerful aggressor. Yet, as Kriwaczek suggests, a more nuanced reading of history and the reality of modern Iran reveals something else—something that my friend the sculptor was acting out as he crafted a Zarathusti Farohar in that narrow alley. “In our hearts we are still Zarathusti,” a number of Iranians quietly said to me as I traveled through the ancient cities and historical sites Kriwaczek describes in his book.

Iranians’ obvious and immutable connection to their past sits uneasily with the orthodox Islamists who rule them. “The absolutist nature of political Islam has always found it unacceptable to accede that even a trace of Zarathustianism remains in Iran,” an academic in Shiraz said to me. Like all others with whom I spoke, he requested anonymity.

Kriwaczek speculates on how Zoroastrianism survived thirteen centuries: “New converts don’t just give up their former spiritual and ethical world-view; they usually bring them along, transferring the old wine into the new bottle.” The Persians accepted the simple purity of Islam as their new faith but nevertheless found ways to preserve their heritage. “Just as in Europe the Holy Roman Empire—‘neither holy, nor Roman, nor or an empire,’ as Voltaire said—was actually a way for baptized German warlords to repackage their pagan traditions in Christian wrapping, so Iranian Islam came to incorporate Iranian national consciousness, Iranian national pride and, yes, Iranian Zoroastrian beliefs.”

Kriwaczek illustrates this point with examples drawn from Persian architecture and poetry. To show, for example, how Persian arts, culture, and science quickly infused Iranian Islam, he compares two pairs of religious buildings—the first and earlier pair a staid and pious structure (Orthodox Islam holds that it is a sin to depict any living thing), the second a structure of perfect geometry resplendent with animal and bird carvings. Kriwaczek also shows that Iranian literary traditions, as personified first by the 12th-century poet Ferdowsi—author of the Shah-nameh, or Book of Kings, the national epic of Iran—and later by the mystic poets Hafez, Sa’adi, and Rumi, are unabashedly pre-Islamic, both in treatment and content. In Shah-nameh Ferdowsi writes that

    Zardosht (Zarathustra), the prophet of the Most High, appeared in the land . . .

    And showed the people a new faith . . .

    He reared throughout the realm a tree with beautiful foliage.

    Men rested beneath its branches . . .

    (and) became perfect in wisdom and faith.

    Islamists still struggle to understand how a good Muslim like Ferdowsi could say that another prophet than Muhammad could make men “perfect” in faith.

    The poems of the mystics were so influential that they helped to initiate an entirely new branch of Islam, Sufism, which added to the earlier split between Iranians and Arabs into Shi‘ite and Sunni Islam. Expectedly, many Sunnis saw Sufism as heresy and to this day it remains banned in Saudi Arabia.

*  *  *

Unfortunately, while Kriwaczek artfully reveals the Zarathustian hinges of Iranian culture, his lack of concrete evidence is a major shortcoming. He also fails to mention the growing interest of many Iranians in their ancient past and faith and the possible repercussions for the country.

Modern Iran has consistently wobbled between the dual and sometimes conflicting pillars that define it: Islam, and what is now euphemistically called Iran’s “pre-Islamic heritage.” As Iran struggles to emerge from the oppressive failures of its Islamic revolution, it has grown increasingly conscious of its roots.

Despite Iran’s reputation as the harbinger of Islamic revolution, the simple fact is that Iranians never wanted an Islamic state in the way Ayatollahs Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei have forged it. Many Iranians welcomed the re-emergence of religion in Iran after the Shah’s relentless modernism, but few wanted or expected the clerics to grab control over people’s daily lives and government.

While in most Sunni Arab countries matters of religion and state have always been inextricable, Iran’s Shi‘ite society sought to separate them. Shi‘ite clerics traditionally belonged to three schools of political thought—“loyalists” who believed in cooperation with the state, “opposers” who exercised moral suasion on the political process from the outside, and “quietists” who advocated outright withdrawal from politics. Before Khomeini, the latter were the largest group.

Khomeini introduced a radically new principle into Shi‘ite Islam: velayat-e faqih (or direct rule by the most senior cleric, i.e., himself). This novel doctrine progressively alienated Iranians and created deep divisions within the clergy, as in the current rift between the hard-line clerics led by Iran’s current Supreme Leader Khamenei (the new beneficiary of velayat-e faqih) and the reformers led by President Hojjatoleslam (the rank just below Ayatollah) Mohammad Khatami.

It is this Shi‘ite tradition of interpretive Islam and political freedom that is causing Iranians to chafe under Khamenei’s velayat-e faqih and giving rise to political changes that could produce the first and most sustainable democracy in the Middle East.

“A loss of faith with the mullahs [in government] has led to a loss of faith in the religion,” says Azar Bharami, a lawyer and women’s rights activist in Tehran. “When the government does not respect the [line] between religion and state how can people?” Numerous surveys, including one by the magazine Asr-e Ma (“Our Era”), have shown that most Iranians under the age of 25—who make up 50 percent of the overall population—consider themselves agnostic. Many young Iranians are cynical, even derisive, about their religion. Epithets like “mad mullahs” and “this thing Islam” are not uncommon.

At a time when many Iranians feel violated by the religious and political extremism inflicted upon them, but remain powerless to act against it, romantic allusions to ancient Persia offer hope. Evidence of popular fascination with Iran’s Persian heritage is everywhere. Stone carvings, paintings, and pictures of Persepolis adorn the walls of many homes, office buildings, and restaurants. In dusty bus stations across Iran’s desert towns, transport companies have painted Farohars on the sides of their sandblasted buses. Savvy marketers have also begun to tap into the trend. The newest model of the locally made Peugeot sedan in Iran has been branded Pars (Persepolis) and consumer products with names like Parsian line the shelves of Iran’s tiny street stores.

“Iranians are trying to discover who they really are,” Bharami said. “They feel shamed by their government and let down by their religion . . . they want something to believe in.” What remains mostly unsaid—not least because saying it could invite a death sentence—is that the increasing interest in Iran’s pre-Islamic past is also fueling an interest in its ancient Zarathusti religion.

“If we were allowed to convert religions, millions would convert [back] to Zarathusti,” a middle-aged Muslim man in Tehran told me. “I challenge the government to allow conversion out of Islam for even one day.”

But he is unlikely to see that day. While Islam is aggressive in proselytizing itself, it bans, by punishment of death, the conversion of Muslims into other faiths. Making matters more complex for those Iranians looking to return to their “original faith” is that the faith itself does not seem to want them. “There can be no conversion into our religion,” says Sohrab Yazdani, a leading member of the Zarathusti community in the city of Yazd, home to most of Iran’s surviving Zarathustis and their religion’s sacred sites.

Having lived as a persecuted minority for more than 1,300 years, Iran’s Zarathustis have formed a tightly knit and closed community. Few want to risk incurring the Iranian government’s wrath at a time when President Khatami has eased many of the serious discriminations their community has endured for centuries. Complicating the theological landscape is the notion that being Zarathusti, like being Jewish, is a matter of birth, not conversion. Any challenge to this closed community of faith is fiercely rejected by most Zarathustis in both Iran and India. The one movement to convert Iranians and others into Zoroastrianism, started by an Iranian named Ali Jaffery, has run afoul of both the Islamic authorities in Iran and the mainstream Zarathusti community.

Caught between their current religion, which won’t let them out, and their desired religion, which won’t let them in, some Iranians are believed to practice Zoroastrianism in secret. But if some take this risk, virtually none are willing to talk about it. However, there is growing evidence that at least one disenfranchised group in the region has indeed been turning towards Zoroastrianism—the Kurds.

Kurdish religious practices bear close resemblance in ritual style to the Zarathusti faith. The original religion of the Kurds was Yezidism, a religion greatly influenced by Zoroastrianism, and many Kurds were also Zoroastrian until the Islamic conversions that began in the seventh century. Today, about 25 percent of Kurds still practice Yezidism, which is centered around the town of Lalish in northern Iraq.

According to Dr. Pir Mamou Othman, an expert on Kurdish religious practices, “the Yezidis pray in a way which resembles the prayer-rituals of the Zoroastrians, something especially noticeable in the morning-prayer where the face is turned towards the sun. Their cycle of five prayers also stems from Zoroastrianism, and not from Islam, as is often stated.” Though 70 percent of Kurds are nominally Islamic (the remaining 5 percent are Jewish and Christian), they hold their Islam lightly, practicing a syncretic articulation of the faith that reflects their pre-Islamic past.

There are reports, mostly unconfirmed, that in the face of persecution from both Shias and Sunnis and their growing political independence, some Kurdish tribes have begun to embrace Zoroastrianism. In a rare interview on the subject, Mahir Welat—representative of the National Liberation Front of Kurdistan (ERNK) and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to the Russian Federation—said that “For a time the Kurds forgot about their Zoroastrianism roots but now it is our intention to return and to educate ourselves.”

It is not completely coincidental that it took a person in Welat’s position to make these comments. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many people in southern Russia and the newly independent Central Asian republics of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan, historically part of the Persian Empire, have openly embraced Zoroastrianism.

As these republics struggle to reimagine themselves as sovereign states, they are drawn to their ancient ethnic roots. Leaders of the republics, especially President Imomali Rahmonov of Tajikistan, support the resurgent interest in Zoroastrianism, which they hope might counter the radical Islam that the Saudis and others are trying to export into the region.

*  *  *

Paul Kriwaczek, with his background as a producer of BBC documentaries on South Asia and a longtime resident of the region, is well equipped to illustrate the socio-religious dynamics of this phenomenon, even though he skirts the political dimensions. Despite its flaws, his investigation into the opposite ends of time—the ancient spread of Zarathustian ideas and today’s quiet resurgence of Zoroastrianism in a world wounded by religious excess and conflict—gives the book a vital originality. In Search of Zarathustra is written with the prescient elegance of a curious traveler and in the hope that ideas that once changed the world may do so again.<

Jehangir Pocha is a foreign correspondent for In These Times and is currently based in Beijing, China. His articles have also been published in the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest newshia

KrazyKaffir, since you hate Muslims so much, why not just leave this forum? After all, we are the same people who 'looted, raped and killed you'. No one here agrees with your hateful viewpoints, and you have no friends here as a result. You are VHP material... how can a person like you exist on a planet called 'Earth'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrazyKaffir, since you hate Muslims so much,

No, I do not.

The problem with alot of you people is you do not read or listen. You deem any Hindu who holds ANY anti-Islam/Muslim sentiment as some total Hindutva/RSS nutjob who wishes to "cleanse" India of all but Hindus.

Sorry, that is not the case. Just as I know many of you are anti-American fanatics, that does not necessarily make you homicidal terrorists.

So I will repeat myself once again:

- I do NOT hate Muslims in general, as the average Muslim does not follow Islam in its enterity (this is really true for American Muslims) and in general are sane-minded, friendly people. If I hate a Muslim, its due to other reasons.

- I do not, however, like Islam.

- I do not have anything against the Muslims of India. They have proven themselves to be a sane-minded and peacefull bunch. I wish for India to remain a secular country.

- This does not mean, however, that I deny my Indic roots and the FACT that India IS Hindu centric and IS the homeland of Hindus and our religion, as well as three other faiths, just as the Arab countries are central to the Islamic world.

no one here agrees with your hateful viewpoints

I do "not like" Islam, I hate the Mughal invasions, and I utterly hate Muslim terrorists. I also despise ANYONE who wishes any harm to the United States and to India. So in accordance, this means that I hate "some" Muslims, but the reason for me hating them does not have anything to directly do with the fact that they are Muslim.

Just as many of you hate the USA, Israel, Jews/Zionists, India (or its government), etc, etc, I hate (or dislike) much of the corruption, violence, and terrorism that is prevalent in the Muslim world and its inablity, as a whole, to adept to the modern world.

I also find much of Muslim history to be a joke and a big oxymoron, as the supposed "followers of the true, perfect faith" have such an imperfect history, and are such a ridiculously imperfect people that it boggles my mind.

I also find it a complete irony that Muslims (Shias in this case) have the audacity to denounce these ILLEGAL invasions, when the whole reason many of you on this site (and most Muslims, in general) ARE Muslin due to some Arab , Turk, or Iranian illegally invading someone elses land.

So the whole paradox of this is that MOST of you are Muslim today due to the fact that some Muslim invader DID NOT follow the Quran and apparantly broke one of its cardinal rules (because, after all, invasion IS NOT warranted in Islam).

:!!!:

Edited by krazykaffir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of [Edited Out]... the only thing true from that post is that people despise Mullahs, and government-organized religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ofcourse you think it is a load of [Edited Out].

The day millions of Iranians convert back to their REAL religion is the day when I will respect Iran as a country, and the day that Iran will begin to prosper.

To rid Iran of its heavy Muslim INFLUENCE, is help Iran adapt into our modern world. This, however, does not mean that Iran should deport or ban Islam, as that would be counterproductive to a secular country.

What I am stating is that Iran is too ISLAM-centric, and the the fact that the government will basicaly beat your ass if you convert out shows how backwards the country is.

A secular Iran with a large Zorastrian following will also help Iran rid it of its bad image and help distinguish the country from its seemingly homogenous neighboors who are "Islamified" beyond repair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't really care less what you think or don't think about Iran, or in any other issue for that matter.

You lack knowledge on everything from Zoroastrianism, Mughals as well as the Iranian people. You just decide beforehand what is right and wrong, enter the discussion to push your ego, and when you face opposition, you try to justify by changing the topic into something else (which again you fail to prove anything in), in an endless cycle.

You are the perfect exemplification of a fanatic - an individual completely incapable of accepting realities, and who lives in a fantasy world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't really care less what you think or don't think about Iran, or in any other issue for that matter.

You lack knowledge on everything from Zoroastrianism, Mughals as well as the Iranian people. You just decide beforehand what is right and wrong, enter the discussion to push your ego, and when you face opposition, you try to justify by changing the topic into something else (which again you fail to prove anything in), in an endless cycle.

You are the perfect exemplification of a fanatic - an individual completely incapable of accepting realities, and who lives in a fantasy world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you say so. :!!!:

Nothing that I have said is false or infactual. Wether that be about the Mughals, the history of Muslim invasions, my references to the Quran, or about Zorarastrianism.

Perhaps you should speak to some Parsis one day, and then you will see how much THEY resent the Muslim rulers of Iran and the Iranian abandonement of IRANIAN culture.

Want a small sample?

head over to dcpersian.com, click on the forums, and browse some of the posts, many of posted by Zorastrian Iranians.

If you want a fanatic, look at the authors of all of the anti-American and anti-Jew garbage that has been posted in this very same forum.

As with just about every Muslim, the minute anyone says anything that is remotely Islam or Muslim, you deem them as a fanatic. Muslims assume that once everyone learns about Islam and the history of Muslims, that the person will LIKE (or convert to ) Islam and respect the religion and the history of the people.

Sorry, that is not the case.

Edited by krazykaffir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krazy Kafir,

Get a grip man.

I think it would be good to remember that because neither you or I practice Islam we should consider ourselves guests. We all worship the same god so I think to speak ill of another faith is to speak ill of god which is adharmin. Sri Ramakrishna practiced many faiths while following his dharma and respected them all.

I have been in many debates and exchanges of ideas but as soon as I expect to effect change in someone I only open myself up to disappointment and anger. Just put your information out there and let it settle without attachment to its' effects,

Ancient history is just that we can't change it. We have to deal with where we are today. Think about what this planet would be like if everyone held grudges from

years long gone. Not very pretty is it.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow im quite impressed. You have actually returned. I thought you had run awa crying like a little girl, again. Its nice to see that you have proven me wrong.

you posted a link about a Buddhist, ex- Hindu who commited no genocide.

Maybe you should try reading your own links.

The links are about the genocide commited by Asoka when he was a hindu. His convertion to Bhuddism came after he realised the evil in his ways. Try reading the information available. Come on you can click on a link right or do I need to run you through that, again.

But if you dont like that one here another, just for KK(K):

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/buddhists.html

It "propped up" because I acknowledged that it was possible that the

Iranians had SOME knowledge of Islam before the Arab invasions. It is common sense, and reflective of human nature in how knowledge travels.

You second question is dumb and idiotic, as the fact stands that the Iranians were not majority Muslim or even close to it before the Arabs invaded.

LOL all of this realisation came after I challenged your stupid notion that the Iranians knew nothing about Islam which you raised prior to any invasion by the arabs. Now you are singing a different tune once your stupidity is shown to everyone because how can a neighbour not know anything about those he lives next to. Yet even after all of this you still have the audacity to claim to know how much one needs to know about Islam before one can convert. So how about you answer your stupid claim instead of resorting to such child like tactics. I mean you do have an answer right?

You see you seem to live under two very base and idiotic impressions. One is that you believe there were no Muslims in Iran prior to invasion of parts of it, because there was no ONE full invasion that took all of modern day Iran. Actual Iranians who had converted or even your Muslim trader from neighbouring areas. And two, you seem to believe that they all converted over night after one big invasion that you seem to believe took all of modern day Iran. Your an idiot. Your base version of history has no place among the intelligent. Go to school and try to work your way up because your not wise or educated enough to play with the big boys yet. And thats not just because your a midget.. :D

Islam came from Arabia, not from India.

India is not Arabia.

LOL yet all those people in India that are Muslims are Indian. Actually they are more Indian then you so you have no right to call them foreigners just because of the faith that they adhere to. Once again this base right wing Hinuduvaati concept raises its head again. I mean how can you justify such a thing while knowing that Hinudism spread from region to region of India and wasnt just everywhere one day like you seem to believe. Only because modern day maps draw up nations like they do doesnt mean India was always united nor does it mean that India was always the one nation that it is today. The many kingdoms that made up India before the world was curved up in a more universal way was was the nationdom and boundries and soverignty that was adhered to just like we accept modern day nations. So taking this into consideration the spread of hinudism from one region and kingdom of india to another was just like the spread of Islam from one region to another. So Hinduism too could be deemed 'foriegn' too to the many regions that it has spread to. But of course you would never acept such a notion because, well you are a hindu and hypocrits dont like there stupid concepts working against them. Well it does buddy, weather you accept ot or not.

India is majority Hindu.

The Hindu homeland is India.

According to modern day maps which you seem to accept when you want and when it backs your argument.

India is known for its indigenous religions, which include Hinduism, just as the middle-east and Arabs are known for Islam, and as Europe is known for being overwhelmingly Christian.

Yet that doesnt mean that that part of the world belongs to only that religion in question. Yet you seem to believe it does, deeming other religions as foreign. Theres is a difference between a region being known for something then it being catagorised for being only for something as you done. I mean your notioin is espeacially silly because you yourself would be a 'forigner' in Christian america so you shoud thankgod(S) that the american majority or the governemnt doesnt adhere to such right wing stupid notions as you do. Otherwise you would be on the first boat back to the 'homeland'. And you remeber what happened last time you were there dont you midget man. :D

Hinduism does not claim it is the "one" truth, it claims that many, if not most religions are all different paths to one God.

Please a link. I mean no offence but I dont believe you because, well, you have a tendecy to argue against anything I say. What school of thought says such things? What is the point of being a hindu if it is not the only religion to offer salvation? What about the 'levels' of reincarnation? Please a link.

Hindus, in general, do not seek converts. We are not convert-happy like Muslims.

Yet many of your people expect those that are born from Hindu perants to become Hindu. Or even those whose ancestors were Hindus to become hindu once again. That was once the defence used against the creation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation for Muslims.

Islam and Christianity rely on thier bold and totalitarian claims in order to gain converts. The goal of Islam is world-wide domination, with a majority Muslim population. This is VERY totalitarian, and dare I say, intolerant.

This is no goal. This is just a prophecy that is a sign of the end of days. I mean there are people that want a 'muslim world' just like there are people that want a only hindu India or Hindu Indian sub contienant. But just like in Hinduism, in Islam these people are not the majority. In the, end in one form or another, all religion need converts to survive and go on. Not even you can argue against this. Weather that convert is the newly born baby or the atheist in the street.

I already answered the question you dolt.

There is no such thing as a true "Muslim", but a true Shia, a true Wahhabi, and a true Sunni.

LOL idiot boy you have only now put forward this stupid answer now one you were punked/called out on your stupid notion before. It does take abit of time for you to answer questions doesnt it buddy. You dont like quesrions do you? If you dont want to be asked any then raise stupid notion.

Fact of the matter is that there may not be any true representative of your faith but for ours it is our beloved prophet.

And second you can believe that OBL and co are the true reps of Islam all you want but in the end that only shows your ignorance of Islam. Actions can be deemed as representative or not.

And kept that short and simple just for KK. :)

It's called a hypothetical situation. I do'nt know if they teach you about words like "hypothetical" in your [Edited Out]py Chechen schools, but I suggest you look it up.

Well unlike you I would rather stick to reality. You do know what that mean dont you or did you miss english class, again. You see it is more accurate to use reality i.e what is actually happening rather then some fanatasy made up scenario from some midget that hate islam more then he hates his own pathetic little life. Reality, try to sticking to it.

and the dog keeps barking...

already been adressed.

You havent addressed anything little one. All you have done is miss it out in you next post or quoted it then not even addressed it in you 'reply' (if you can call it that) below what you quoted. Dont worry its probably just your selective coincidental amnesia and you forgot to reply. Maybe its hindi classes that are stopping you from comprehending (you know that that means right?) what I post. Or maybe its another delsuion taking hold in where you thought you provided an answer. Which one is it KK?

then find one of your "hypothetical" (ohh, big word) questionaires.

Do you actually know what hypothetical means because I've got a few questionnaire forms right here:

http://www.uga.edu/isiw/vcisiw_quest_web.html

http://soundvision.com/info/women/masjidsurvey.asp

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=795

So tell me how small do you feel right now? :D

Perhaps you should learn more about your own Prophet.

Your the one that needs abit of education on the Prophet, among alot of other things. Atleast know abit about what you hate pal. I would respect you abit more for that.

Better yet, have you killed any Chechen Christians yet? They are idolater infidels, fit for the Muslim sword.

Actually I have but not because they were christians but because they bombed my house while my family was still in it. Its called revenge but you can believe yours little stupid prejudices all you want.

Be a good Muslim and spread your true faith and rid the planet of the impure and thier idolatrous cults. You are Sunni btw, so none of this is below you.

Did I hit a nerve? LOL once again the mohdi lover make another stupid claim against Islam. You see it is this type of stupid pretensions that you put forward that have earned you the title of shiachat idiot. I mean if Islam actually talked about killing infidels, which you havnt backed with anything, then wouldnt most muslims being do that right now. Yet in REALITY this is not the case. And once again KK shows how much he really wants to be the first Indian Hindu Klu Klux Klan memebr by believing he is superior because of his religion. When they do allow you to join up though KK, dont lift that white hood up, because you wont be welcomed with open arms. You'll be lynched up buddy.

As stated, the GOAL of Islam is world-wide Muslim majority.

Learn more about your religion.

Try taking some of Satyaban's advice buddy. Dont worry he/she is not a muslim. I think Ummee and papa have been telling little KK a few more horror stories. And once again you have whole heartedly believe them. But please to entertain you little stupid notion, provide a quote from the Quraan about this global conspiracy which you have knowledge about yet no Muslim does. Dont worry KK they cant tack you from your ISP, your safe. Paranoid little midget. :D

Atleast I know something about Islam, when you do'nt seem to know anything about anything OTHER than Islam.

Once again another episode of where Midget man quotes but doesnt actually answer that which he quoted. Why dont you actually answer the quote and provide material from the qaraan about that idiotic notion you have raised. Please, one quote from the QURAAN which you believe backs everything you say. You see the problem is that you cant because it doesnt say that. Its called blind hate, and you suffer from it. Only because your a little man doesnt mean you need to havea little brain. Try thinking on your own instead of adhering to what ummee and papa say, what the local pundit says, what is said by other family memebrs or what those voices in your head say. Go on give it a go, i promise it wont hurt.

I can see that my reference to your Uncle Akbar who shot up those school children in the name of Islam HIT YOUR NERVE.

Yeh me punkin/callin you out on you wanting to give some midget loving to some guy called 'Akhbar' really shows that you have hit a nerve doesnt it. LOL you really are one delusional little man aint ya.

But hang on a sec, someone called Akhbar shot up a school in the name of Islam? Please a link to this news? You do have a link right. I mean you wouldnt be joking about such a thing in light of the recent events in Columbine and even one last week, was it, where 9 people were killed before the gunman (or gunboy in his case since he was just a kid) turned the gun on himself. You wouldnt be joking about such tragic events would you KK by putting forward this made up or true event? You wouldnt be inspired by such events as these to take a stab at me becasuse I have hit a nerve on several occasions within this thread, would you KK? Thats below you, right?

Or perhaps were you one of those masked fruitcakes who prey on little-children?

A Micheal Jackson fan perhaps?

I think your putting forward one of your 'hypothitical' scenario again. I dont do that kind of thing KK. I mean do you actually dress up as a school kid hoping a guy will take advantage of you? No wonder you know so much about this type of thing. Thats just on a whole new level of sick. I mean these kids are the victims in such cases, yet you want to be the victim. Has the 'dry season' been so long that the only action you can expect is from the local pedophile in the street that you hope will notice you. Even if that local pedophile happens to be you uncle Raaj. What the hell is wrong with you? First mohdi doesnt answer your calls, emails, faxes and now this. You really are one sick little midget.

not relvent to the argument.

Im just trying to help you get out of your fall of being such a loser. I mean all you have is the hate for 1.4 billion people to help you get up out of bed. You should thank the Muslims because atleast you can focus your life, like you have, on hating us. Atleast that will stop you from being the pedophile's victim to making a victim of your own you little horny midget.

keep telling yourself that.

As anyone can see all you have done is missed all the replied I have put forward to you idiotic notions. You have yet to provide links or quoted to most notions you raise. Your posts are just pathetic. All I have is the comedic value left now because you provide nothing with any substance or even anything abit challenging.

as you have gay and midget jokes, fatty!

Try reading and you will soon see that is not case. Come on give it a go.

funny you accuse me of hate, yet you seem to have an extreme hatred for gay people.

I have no hate for gay people. I just dont like you, and I dont like you hitting on me as you have tried to. And its not an accusation against you KK, its plain for all to see. Just look at this thread, everyone can see it. Even your own Hindu bredrns can see it within your stupid little posts. And if you could read, you would see they are all caling you out on it. Stop denying it, wear it with pride just like you do the Kafir thing.

Interesting.... Have you been sexually assualted by a gay man?

Not at all. Unless you label your little lines as assualt. I bet you do. :D

Perhaps it is because you are so ugly, and hence cannot get a female and like men, yet refuse to admit your newfound homosexuality?

LOL I think your confusing me with you. I know it must be hard for you to bring your perants round on you being a homo. It must be hard being a closet homo with your perants who have traidtion anti gay views and prinicples. They want you to marry Pooja, yet your too busy looking at Pooja's brother.

But dont worry Im sure they wont find anything serious for a wirey midget man who cant even get a job at the local 7/11. I bet Pooja can do much then you. And Im sure you hope she feels the same way :!!!:

I assume this is what you look like?

LOL you think my head looks like a yellow little ball with dots for eyes and a thing on the face which I can only assume is a beard. Sorry to disspoint you but those are just comptuer graphics not actual real heads. Have your delusions over come you so far? And by the way stop fanatasising about what I look like midget man.

Did you try the thinking excercise we went through before? I dont think you have. Well look lets try and dumb down the process further. Try reading what i say first. Just read, dont think (or try i guess in your case), just read and try and comprehend. OK. Did you get that or shall I reapet it?

Why do you bother KK. You provide nothing with any substance or, well, anything that makes any sense really. Or have things with Mohdi got you down so bad that all you have to offer is the poor excuse for a post that you have provided? Im sure the school bullying doesnt help does it midget man. But dont worry im sure you'll get lucky like this fellow miget of yours, damn forgot your a closet homo:

post-1529-1112884563_thumb.jpg

Edited by Dhzokhar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
India is known for its indigenous religions, which include Hinduism, just as the middle-east and Arabs are known for Islam, and as Europe is known for being overwhelmingly Christian.
Yet that doesnt mean that that part of the world belongs to only that religion in question.

Dhzokhar,

Does this apply to all countries/regions equally, or just to non-muslim lands.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
It applies to all nations and all religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you would have no problem with someone establishing a church or synagogue or temple in Iran or Saudi Arabia, for eg.?

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

well , he would'nt

but the govt would :angel:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050326-111002-8593r.htm

Religious police destroy temple

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Agence France-Presse) -- Saudi religious police have destroyed a clandestine makeshift Hindu temple in an old district of Riyadh and deported three worshippers found there, a newspaper reported yesterday.

    Members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, on Thursday stumbled across a room converted into a temple while raiding a number of apartments suspected of being used to manufacture alcohol and distribute pornographic videos, pan-Arab Al-Hayat said.

forget about church/synagogue/temple in the open....they take offense to a *room*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Please don't compare Iran with Saudi Arabia. There are hundreds of churches in Iran, and tens of synagogues and zoroastrian temples.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello waiting,

Fair enough, point noted. However, even in Iran, would someone be able to establish a new church/temple etc,. without fear or hindrance?

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on who is in power. Some clerics believe that it is prohibited for religious minorities to construct new buildings, and that they should only use their existing buildings.

But this is not authentic Shi'i belief - this is something 'Umar invented, i.e. a Panarab innovation. In his pact with the Christians, once he captured Jerusalem, he stated that they were allowed to use and repair existing churches but prohibited from constructing new ones.

Regarding the construction of churches etc. in Iran, I would assume if a non-extremist government was in power, then it would not be much of a problem.

Historically, the Shi'i kings in Iran have been benevolent and allowed construction of religious temples (churches, synagogues etc.). You can look at some churches here:

http://www.iranchamber.com/monuments/histo...urches_iran.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would have no problem with someone establishing a church or synagogue or temple in Iran or Saudi Arabia, for eg.?

I dont have any problem with any type of religious temple for any type of religion being set up in any nation. Unfortunatly though the government in Saudi Arabia does just like it has a problem with giving citizenship to people that werent born there. You should take note of that Satyam. Although your article does back the intolerence of the house of saud what you should also remember is that those that set up the hindu temple were not Saudi nationals thus its against the law as it would be in any nation. Non-Saudis cant legally own land or businesses within Saudi Arabia so this isnt just because of religious intolerence. This action by these guys would have been in breach of work permit contracts from any nation. So the government does technically have the right to deport them. However the involvement of the religious authority does back the fact that the Saudi government is against religious minorities setting up temples.

However although the Saudi government does display such intolerence its religious authority still has double standards when 'interests' are at stake. There are many foreign military bases and compounds within Saudi arabia. And these compounds and bases offer all type of temples. Apparantly the american military base has a massive masse celebration in which even princes of the house of saud have participated in. Now you can argue that that land is foreign land because of the nations that have set up there. However because of the citizenship and land laws of Saudi Arabia legally according to Saudi law that land still belongs to the state because those are non saudi nationals thus Saudi arabia still has authority yet they do not destroy the temples or stop the celebrations within them. Makes you question the 'religious' justification (which they have yet to offer one since the justification is that there are no non muslim saudis in saudi arabia so there is no need for temples of other faiths) of this intolorent law.

But of course the Iranian government has no problems with religious minorities setting up their own temples:

http://www.iranchamber.com/monuments/histo...urches_iran.php

http://www.farsinet.com/iranchurches/

http://www.vohuman.org/SlideShow/KermanMod...of%20Kerman.htm

http://www.kosherdelight.com/Irankosher.htm

Let me ask you something Wisken. Of course it is quite common knowledge that Saudi arabia doesnt offer temples to other religions then Islam. However did you think the same about Iran?

Edited by Dhzokhar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I dont have any problem with any type of religious temple for any type of religion being set up in any nation.  Unfortunatly though the government in Saudi Arabia does just like it has a problem with giving citizenship to people that werent born there.  You should take note of that Satyam.  Although your article does back the intolerence of the house of saud what you should also remember is that those that set up the hindu temple were not Saudi nationals thus its against the law as it would be in any nation.  Non-Saudis cant legally own land or businesses within Saudi Arabia so this isnt just because of religious intolerence.  This action by these guys would have been in breach of  work permit contracts from any nation.  So the government does technically have the right to deport them.  However the involvement of the religious authority does back the fact that the Saudi government is against religious minorities setting up temples.

However although the Saudi government does display such intolerence its religious authority still has double standards when 'interests' are at stake.  There are many foreign military bases and compounds within Saudi arabia.  And these compounds and bases offer all type of temples.  Apparantly the american military base has a massive masse celebration in which even princes of the house of saud have participated in.  Now you can argue that that land is foreign land because of the nations that have set up there. However because of the citizenship and land laws of Saudi Arabia legally according to Saudi law that land still belongs to the state because those are non saudi nationals thus Saudi arabia still has authority yet they do not destroy the temples or stop the celebrations within them.  Makes you question the 'religious' justification (which they have yet to offer one since the justification is that there are no non muslim saudis in saudi arabia so there is no need for temples of other faiths) of this intolorent law.

But of course the Iranian government has no problems with religious minorities setting up their own temples:

http://www.iranchamber.com/monuments/histo...urches_iran.php

http://www.farsinet.com/iranchurches/

http://www.vohuman.org/SlideShow/KermanMod...of%20Kerman.htm

http://www.kosherdelight.com/Irankosher.htm

Let me ask you something Wisken.  Of course it is quite common knowledge that Saudi arabia doesnt offer temples to other religions then Islam.  However did you think the same about Iran?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dhzokhar & waiting,

Yes. I did think Iran was as restrictive as SA. I was actually surprised that there are still churches etc. in Iran. Are there any Hindu temples there?

Even so, I would imagine it would be tough for anyone to go to Iran and set up a fledgling house of worship, especially with the widely publicized cases of people being punished for apostasy there and elsewhere in the region.

I am glad that you at least, seem not to subscribe to the old Henry Ford dictum "any color you want as long as its black," as applied to religion.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

dhzokar and waiting

thanks for the explanation. however , the temple was not an actual temple in a public place. i would imagine it to be some pictures or stones in a room since it says "makeshift temple in a room". do the rules still apply?

i have heard that the saudis go thru all ur luggage while entering their country and destroy all pictures and books of other faiths. do they do that for christians too , or is it just for us kaafir hindus?

i would imagine iran to be more tolerant to structures of other faiths. would iran permit me to start a temple ,if i come to iran :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many hindus in Iran. I've never actually heard of one.

There are many indian-origin people though. Ayatullah Khomeini is of Indian origin (his grandfather immigrated to Iran from Lucknow in northern India). Most of them are muslim.

I do know that there is a small Sikh community in Iran, and they have a temple in Tehran (called "gurdwara"), apparently the only one in West Asia / Middle East according to Sikh.net Gurdwara directory (http://www.sikh.net/Gurdwara/World/G_ME.htm).

Here's an article on them:

Teheran: The resident Indian community in this country predominantly comprises Sikh families, mostly in business, who have faced the vicissitudes of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 with an element of stoic realism.

The strength of this industrious community, most of its members hailing from Rawalpindi in undivided India, has dwindled over the years due to a combination of factors, including the problems of continuing with their vocation.

There are now only about a 100-odd families in this sprawling capital of 13 million persons, ringed by snow-capped hills, who have kept their moorings with relatives and friends in Amritsar, Chandigarh, New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata.

They are mostly people of second or third generation, having been born in this country after their forefathers first came here via Quetta to Zahedon between 1918 and 1930, a small hamlet on Iran’s border with Pakistan. Some of their peers had served in the British Indian Army and in the course of duty had travelled to Iran and made it their home ultimately.

Only a miniscule part of the Sikh community has taken Iranian citizenship though the majority of them retain Indian passports.

The community has its share of niggling irritants as they have to cough up a hefty sum of money every month per individual in the family for being able to pursue their avocation. This, despite the fact that for all practical purposes they are Iranians but continue to hold Indian passports.

Amarjit Singh Chaddha, 72, who heads a commercial company of his own, regrets that Indian leaders give a patient hearing to their woes whenever they are in Teheran, but when they return home these problems are conveniently forgotten. “We have submitted any number of memoranda to the Ministers with absolutely no follow-up with the Iranian authorities. Our only source of help is the Indian Embassy here”.

“Most of the members of the Sikh community are in trading, imports and exports”, Darshan Sawhney, 68, said. He has opted for Iranian citizenship and had applied for it during the deposed Shah’s regime. The sprightly Mr Sawhney, running a popular Indian restaurant and a hotel, stresses that life is by and large comfortable, barring the small irritants. His parents originally hailed from Amritsar.

He and others explained that they have been able to surmount some of the problems of post-revolution Iran, thanks to their rapport and proximity to Iranians. All of them speak fluent Farsi (Persian) and are highly popular among the fiesty and friendly Iranians.

They acknowledge that things have changed for the better under the reformist Iranian President Seyed Mohammad Khatami. They are, however, keeping a close tab on the crucial upcoming elections in Iran, scheduled to be held in June.

Juggu Sawhney, whose wife hails from Burdwan in West Bengal, and runs his own transmission company, says the Sikh community here is not alienated culturally. It has one of the biggest gurdwaras in this region and everyone is eagerly looking forward to the Baisakhi festivities on Friday.

The Indian community runs its own school, where Gurmukhi is taught by the granthi of the gurdwara, which is more than 40 years old. The granthi is invariably brought from New Delhi on a contract for a period of three to five years.

Mr Sawhney informed that granthis coming from India keenly look out for greener pastures despite all facilities. The previous granthi of the gurdwara zipped off to Manila in The Philippines when the Sikh community in that country offered him a lucrative package.

Overall, the law-abiding but small and robust Sikh community in this country enjoys considerable influence with Iranians. Interestingly, the Iranian ambassador in India has a host of childhood friends among the Sikhs, having grown up with them in his younger days in Teheran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satyam, the only opposition in Iran is to Evangelical Christianity. The reason is that these are usually the fundamentalist type of people that want to "save" everybody and generally cause friction and chaos (also most Iranians are tolerant and don't want to be "saved", we already believe in Jesus Christ etc. and find these people to be annoying).

In other words, this is mostly a political thing because these guys are financed by fanatics in the U.S. and other places etc.

If you would come and start a hindu temple, I would assume no one would have a problem with that since there are Armenian, Syrian-Orthodox, Chaldean etc. churches, Jewish synagogues, Zoroastrian fire-temples, Sikh Gurdwaras, Sunni mosques, Shii mosques etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satyam, the only opposition in Iran is to Evangelical Christianity. The reason is that these are usually the fundamentalist type of people that want to "save" everybody and generally cause friction and chaos (also most Iranians are tolerant and don't want to be "saved", we already believe in Jesus Christ etc. and find these people to be annoying).

In other words, this is mostly a political thing because these guys are financed by fanatics in the U.S. and other places etc. 

If you would come and start a hindu temple, I would assume no one would have a problem with that since there are Armenian, Syrian-Orthodox, Chaldean etc. churches, Jewish synagogues, Zoroastrian fire-temples, Sikh Gurdwaras, Sunni mosques, Shii mosques etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please explain the difference between fundamentalist christian tactics and fundamentalist muslim tactics. Do fundamentalist muslims believe christians are going to burn in a hell as christians believe of muslims?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wow im quite impressed. You have actually returned. I thought you had run awa crying like a little girl, again. Its nice to see that you have proven me wrong.

Proving you wrong has proven' itsself easy

The links are about the genocide commited by Asoka when he was a hindu. His convertion to Bhuddism came after he realised the evil in his ways. Try reading the information available. Come on you can click on a link right or do I need to run you through that, again.

But if you dont like that one here another, just for KK(K):

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/buddhists.html

geocities links are not credible links. Any idiot can easily acquire a geocities site.

LOL all of this realisation came after I challenged your stupid notion that the Iranians knew nothing about Islam which you raised prior to any invasion by the arabs. Now you are singing a different tune once your stupidity is shown to everyone because how can a neighbour not know anything about those he lives next to. Yet even after all of this you still have the audacity to claim to know how much one needs to know about Islam before one can convert. So how about you answer your stupid claim instead of resorting to such child like tactics. I mean you do have an answer right?

Yes you did challenge my notion. And as a rational human being, I can be open to new concepts (unlike your dumb ass). It is possible that the idea of Islam existed in Iran before the Arabs invaded. Nothing extraordinary about it.

That does not, however, mean that Islam DID exist in Iran before the Arab invasions, it's just a possibility.

The fact still stands, however, that there was no large or significant Muslim presence in Iran before the Arabs invaded.

You see you seem to live under two very base and idiotic impressions. One is that you believe there were no Muslims in Iran prior to invasion of parts of it, because there was no ONE full invasion that took all of modern day Iran. Actual Iranians who had converted or even your Muslim trader from neighbouring areas.

prove it.

And two, you seem to believe that they all converted over night after one big invasion that you seem to believe took all of modern day Iran

nope. From what I have read it took a few hundred years. Even still, I fail to see how that is relevent to the argument.

LOL yet all those people in India that are Muslims are Indian. Actually they are more Indian then you so you have no right to call them foreigners just because of the faith that they adhere to.

I have already stated my stance on Indian Muslims you idiot.

Once again this base right wing Hinuduvaati concept raises its head again. I mean how can you justify such a thing while knowing that Hinudism spread from region to region of India and wasnt just everywhere one day like you seem to believe.

spare me your lectures on something you have no idea about. Early Hindu religion existed with the IVC an in other areas of India through mithological and animist beliefs.

According to modern day maps which you seem to accept when you want and when it backs your argument.

ofcourse I accept modern-day maps. Who doesnt?

Yet that doesnt mean that that part of the world belongs to only that religion in question. Yet you seem to believe it does, deeming other religions as foreign.

Nope.

Just because I acknowledge the obvious fact that different religions originated from and are associated with different areas of the world, does not mean that I am not secular.

Idiot.

It does take abit of time for you to answer questions doesnt it buddy. You dont like quesrions do you? If you dont want to be asked any then raise stupid notion.

Fact of the matter is that there may not be any true representative of your faith but for ours it is our beloved prophet.

And second you can believe that OBL and co are the true reps of Islam all you want but in the end that only shows your ignorance of Islam. Actions can be deemed as representative or not.

And kept that short and simple just for KK. smile.gif

another [Edited Out] response that has no bearing on the subject.

I proved to you through simple logic how there is no true Muslim, yet you go on some rant about some BS that is unrelated.

Do you actually know what hypothetical means because I've got a few questionnaire forms right here:

http://www.uga.edu/isiw/vcisiw_quest_web.html

http://soundvision.com/info/women/masjidsurvey.asp

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=795

So tell me how small do you feel right now? biggrin.gif

find me the results of a Shia specific survey, that have thousands of particpants.

fetch boy.

Actually I have but not because they were christians but because they bombed my house while my family was still in it. Its called revenge but you can believe yours little stupid prejudices all you want.

i see.

Like a good Sunni Muslim, you have engaged in the slaying of infidels. Jannah awaits you with 72 houris (or boys, if you prefer).

Why dont you expand your Islamic jihad into India and slay some idolter-infidels?

(since you are dumb, and an idiot, this is an obvious parody of your "Modhi" comments).

id I hit a nerve? LOL once again the mohdi lover make another stupid claim against Islam. You see it is this type of stupid pretensions that you put forward that have earned you the title of shiachat idiot. I mean if Islam actually talked about killing infidels, which you havnt backed with anything, then wouldnt most muslims being do that right now. Yet in REALITY this is not the case. And once again KK shows how much he really wants to be the first Indian Hindu Klu Klux Klan memebr by believing he is superior because of his religion. When they do allow you to join up though KK, dont lift that white hood up, because you wont be welcomed with open arms. You'll be lynched up buddy.

Na man.

Just be a good Muslim and follow your deen by engaging in Jihad against the filithy idolter infidel, as Mohhamed did in his time. Perhaps you should travel to India, march into a temple, and smash their idols, as Mohhamed did with the Kabbah. Show these filthy hethen kaffirs what the noble sword of Islam is all about.

:lol:

Once again another episode of where Midget man quotes but doesnt actually answer that which he quoted. Why dont you actually answer the quote and provide material from the qaraan about that idiotic notion you have raised. Please, one quote from the QURAAN which you believe backs everything you say. You see the problem is that you cant because it doesnt say that. Its called blind hate, and you suffer from it. Only because your a little man doesnt mean you need to havea little brain. Try thinking on your own instead of adhering to what ummee and papa say, what the local pundit says, what is said by other family memebrs or what those voices in your head say. Go on give it a go, i promise it wont hurt.

ok weakling.

:wacko:

But hang on a sec, someone called Akhbar shot up a school in the name of Islam? Please a link to this news? You do have a link right. I mean you wouldnt be joking about such a thing in light of the recent events in Columbine and even one last week, was it, where 9 people were killed before the gunman (or gunboy in his case since he was just a kid) turned the gun on himself. You wouldnt be joking about such tragic events would you KK by putting forward this made up or true event? You wouldnt be inspired by such events as these to take a stab at me becasuse I have hit a nerve on several occasions within this thread, would you KK? Thats below you, right?

Uncle Akbar did a good job in spreading the noble faith of Islam when he did this:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...149&hl=chechens

I have no hate for gay people. I just dont like you, and I dont like you hitting on me as you have tried to. And its not an accusation against you KK, its plain for all to see. Just look at this thread, everyone can see it. Even your own Hindu bredrns can see it within your stupid little posts. And if you could read, you would see they are all caling you out on it. Stop denying it, wear it with pride just like you do the Kafir thing.

your only comebacks have been fabricated gay and midget jokes. You are a closet homo. It is obvious in your contempt for gay people and to label any-one who disagrees with your opinion as gay. Your like a little kid in middle school.

Edited by krazykaffir
Link to comment
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...