What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,842
-12
9,898
Country
United States
Location
United States
1664769912296.png


What a biblical size collapse.

Shame Solemani ain’t alive. He would at least be transferring game changing weaponry to level the playing field. Who knows what the hell Ghani is doing right now.
 

Shapur Zol Aktaf

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 10, 2013
3,465
-6
5,093
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
Foreign Globalist-liberals and their separatist puppets hijacked the internal demand for reforms. The protests need to be ended asap. First reform which is promised by Islamic republic is about the Gashte Ershad provocators.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
3,270
2
6,060
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Belgium
A far cry from the Safavids who stomped both communities' balls back in during their reign. You need to listen to clergymen like Hojatoleslam Mahdi Daneshmand who expose the zoroastrian and sunni cults for what they are...and while the shirazis and yassir al-habib are horrible politically, their discourses on religious history are quite accurate. Even Ameer ol Momineen {A} has said to listen to what a person is saying, not who he is.

I agree that indefinitely softening the enforcement of laws is a slippery and hazardous slope which the Islamic Republic cannot engage on. With one nuance though: as long as the avenues exploited by the enemy in its cultural soft war against the Iranian people are open, this will make the task much harder for authorities. Moreover, the goal is to have people embrace Islam and Islamic governance on their own volition, therefore authorities cannot confine themselves to police action. The latter is necessary, but doesn't suffice on its own.

It is absolutely imperative to block the means through which the zio-American empire is bombarding Iranians in the propaganda, psy-ops and social engineering departments. Concretely, this means establishing a national internet service physically separate from the global internet, and implementing the ban on satellite dishes. I guess there'll be no way around this if the Islamic character of the political order is to be preserved.

About the Shirazi gang, I must differ. We shall never legitimize them. Not only are they directing vile attacks at the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, not only is it very probable that they're being sponsored by the intelligence services of the UK regime (hence why we refer to them as British turbans) and other existential enemies of Iran, but their sunniphobia is not conforming to Islamic principles. We are enjoined by Islam to work towards Muslim unity, not to stoke fitna and divisions. Also reasons given to rule ordinary Sunni Moslems outside the fold of Islam are invalid, just like the fake narratives and lies about Shia Islam peddled by certain preachers.

Also and unlike a relatively common assumption (including a commentator like Omid Dana), the Shirazis, Hojjatie society (banned by Imam Khomeini (rezvanOllah Ta'ala o alayh) himself in the early 1980's) and similar deviant, qulat-like currents do not really stand for shari' legislation. They rather lean towards secular governance. Their religious fervor is confined to personal and communal practice, as well as to actions against other currents, which in some cases is justified (as with the Bahai sect, or with takfiris hiding behind a Sunni mask) but in other cases (like their all out sunniphobia) serves no purpose other than to stir uncalled for divisions within society.

In short, they are officially a counter-revolutionary movement and a security threat. As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Vali ol-'Amre Moslemin nicely observed: those indulging in takfir against either Shia or Sunni Moslems, are neither Shia nor Sunni. This is not about Shia versus Sunni - a fallacious interpretation directly promoted by the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the criminal lot. It's about Shias and Sunnis, brothers in Islam, joining hands against those who will resort to out of place takfirism. We can also remind a principle formulated by Dr. Abbasi: before physically attacking the enemy, identity and attack its strategy.

Generally speaking, takfir is a highly delicate matter and requires scholarly 'ijma to apply. Those going about it on their own and trespassing said 'ijma are potentially committing a heavy sin.

With regards to the Safavid era, the notion that Sunnis were subjected to repression on the basis of their denomination is not accurate. We have primary sources from this period, including debates between Shia 'olama. There was no policy of takfir against Sunni Moslems. And when it comes to some other aspects promoted by the Shirazis, these did not enjoy consensual support under the Safavids either.
 
Last edited:

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,083
3
15,735
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
not only are they very probably backed by the intelligence services of the UK regime and other existential enemies of Iran, but their sunniphobia is not conforming to Islamic principles.
probably , do you even have 0.5% doubt on that they were previously in the service of her majesty the queen and right now already took an oath of allegiance to the his majesty the king.

he is the exact same definition of English Akhhond .
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
3,270
2
6,060
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Belgium
what ever ,last time i even post articles , and interviews that showed how as soon as they wanted to expand the capability to produce the fabric their attempt sabotaged , the taxes were lifted from import , nobody financed them and their tax remains constant all were done by officials and had nothing to do with private sector.

I don't support it at all. Yes, the black fabric for chadors must be produced in Iran. But it's not the state itself which is importing the merchandise.

Another thing I would like to point to, is simply that this has nothing to do with the dress code implemented under the Islamic Republic. It's not because hejab is mandatory in the public sphere, that millions are wasted on imports. This was true of the pre-Revolution as well, when hejab wasn't mandatory, and it's therefore unrelated to the dress code. Especially since those who opt for chador over headscarf, would still be wearing the same garment if hejab wasn't mandated by law.

And this is why it's necessary to insist on it:

What a true patriot does:
Mahatma-Gandhi orders the boycott of foreign-made goods, especially British goods. Linked to this was his advocacy that khadi (homespun cloth) be worn by all Indians instead of British-made textiles. Gandhi exhorted Indian men and women, rich or poor, to spend time each day spinning khadi in support of the independence movement.[126] In addition to boycotting British products, Gandhi urged the people to boycott British
View attachment 884144

What Iran's Mullah do:
Import $100 million dollars of black fabric a year made by our enemies and wear them with pride because you are true muslims!!..make sure it is "Black" because we do not make that color in Iran and we like to create employment for our enemies.

I wait to see when they finally decide to stop this madness...Stop this fu*king import
:undecided:
.

1) The black color wasn't introduced by the Islamic Republic. It used to be the norm in this social milieu prior to the Islamic Revolution already.

2) During Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi's secular, "non-mullah" rule Iran wasn't producing the black fabric either and used to rely on imports as well.

So there's no basis for linking this issue with the Islamic character of the present political order, nor with the clerical nature of Velayate Faqih. It's a problem which exists under secular, non-religious regimes as well. It must be tackled nonetheless, this I will agree with.

as i recall the daughter of certain ministers , were importing somethings that looked like clothes from abroad. also is it important if the official themselves do the importing , the fact that they are tools of import mafia says alot , the fact that their boss dis nothing about their acts say a lot.

Yeah well, it's what I referred to as collusion between private interests and corrupt elements within the state administration. Privatizing everything will not end this sort of malpractice.

probably , do you even have 0.5% doubt on that they were previously in the service of her majesty the queen and right now already took an oath of allegiance to the his majesty the king.

he is the exact same definition of English Akhhond .

No, I subjectively have zero doubts whatsoever about it. But since I lack documents to this effect, I have to formulate it the way I did.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
I agree that indefinitely softening the enforcement of laws is a slippery and hazardous slope which the Islamic Republic cannot engage on. With one nuance though: as long as the avenues exploited by the enemy in its cultural soft war against the Iranian people are open, this will make the task much harder for authorities. Moreover, the goal is to have people embrace Islam and Islamic governance on their own volition, therefore authorities cannot confine themselves to police action. The latter is necessary, but doesn't suffice on its own.

It is absolutely imperative to block the means through which the zio-American empire is bombarding Iranians in the propaganda, psy-ops and social engineering departments. Concretely, this means establishing a national internet service physically separate from the global internet, and implementing the ban on satellite dishes. I guess there'll be no way around this if the Islamic character of the political order is to be preserved.

About the Shirazi gang, I must differ. We shall never legitimize them. Not only are they directing vile attacks at the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, not only is it very probable that they're being sponsored by the intelligence services of the UK regime (hence why we refer to them as British turbans) and other existential enemies of Iran, but their sunniphobia is not conforming to Islamic principles. We are enjoined by Islam to work towards Muslim unity, not to stoke fitna and divisions. Also reasons given to rule ordinary Sunni Moslems outside the fold of Islam are invalid, just like the fake narratives and lies about Shia Islam peddled by certain preachers.

Also and unlike a relatively common assumption (including a commentator like Omid Dana), the Shirazis, Hojjatie society (banned by Imam Khomeini (rezvanOllah Ta'ala o alayh) himself in the early 1980's) and similar deviant, qulat-like currents do not really stand for shari' legislation. They rather lean towards secular governance. Their religious fervor is confined to personal and communal practice, as well as to actions against other currents, which in some cases is justified (as with the Bahai sect, or with takfiris hiding behind a Sunni mask) but in other cases (like their all out sunniphobia) serves no purpose other than to stir uncalled for divisions within society.

In short, they are officially a counter-revolutionary movement and a security threat. As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Vali ol-'Amre Moslemin nicely observed: those indulging in takfir against either Shia or Sunni Moslems, are neither Shia nor Sunni. This is not about Shia versus Sunni - a fallacious interpretation directly promoted by the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the criminal lot. It's about Shias and Sunnis, brothers in Islam, joining hands against those who will resort to out of place takfirism. We can also remind a principle formulated by Dr. Abbasi: before physically attacking the enemy, identity and attack its strategy.

Generally speaking, takfir is a highly delicate matter and requires scholarly 'ijma to apply. Those going about it on their own and trespassing said 'ijma are potentially committing a heavy sin.

With regards to the Safavid era, the notion that Sunnis were subjected to repression on the basis of their denomination is not accurate. We have primary sources from this period, including debates between Shia 'olama. There was no policy of takfir against Sunni Moslems. And when it comes to some other aspects promoted by the Shirazis, these did not enjoy consensual support under the Safavids either.
I will say this simply - if we can't voice the names of the killers of Ahlolbayt {A} and condemn their actions unreservedly, we are no Shia. And we cannot simply limit ourselves just to the killers of Emam Hoseyn {A} just because the other side is more or less forced to condemn them because of the barbarity at Karbala - Emam Aly {A} was Martyred by ebn moljem (LA) on the orders of muawiya (LA) and Hazrate Fatima {S} was killed with Her unborn child Mohsen {A} by omar ibn khattab (LA) who dropped the door on Her, leading to her Martyrdom and She departed this world deprived of Jannat ol Baqi by abu bakr ibn abu qahafa (LA) and omar (LA).

These are the truths our ulema must be free to declare from the pulpit without state pressure restraining them. I'm not saying they be allowed to swear with abusive words from the pulpit, merely that they be allowed to speak on these subjects truthfully and send La'nat as is deserved.

And as for sunnis being Muslims, I consider them to be Muslims only in terms of being reciters of Shahadah (incomplete at that). Their doctrine skates over much of the glory of Ahlolbayt {A} to the point they edit their own books of hadith to hide references Shia ulema draw from them to prove the Emami/Jafari fiqh. Such liars and thieves are no Muslims. Even a non-Muslim who doesn't even believe in the Prophet {S} might pick up the Quran and from a philosophical standpoint uncover knowledge that thus far escaped our own scholars - does that make him Muslim? No, of course not and neither does it for the sunnis.

I won't go into the detail of Safavid rule but Shah Ismail I's rule was outright brutal to sunnis and he spared no thought before unleashing the Qizilbash on them (he butchered uzbeks en masse and made a drinking goblet out of their khan's skull). Shah Abbas I and onwards became more mellow but even they would time to time lash out and massacre/displace sunnis for causing unrest.

Now as far as yasser al-habib goes, I'll be forthcoming - his politics are wrong and disruptive in my view. But his sermons are always on point and he cites his sources for the viewers and in light of that, I refuse to be a sheep and falsely condemn him on religious basis. Nor am I a fan of Shirazis who want to more or less move to a style of governance conceived in Mossadegh's era but if they recite Majles and back their claims with references, I'll definitely listen and acknowledge the truth.

To close, Iranians compromise WAY too much. Look at Anbar in iraq for example - the name itself is Persian and even after the "rashidun" period, the town remained a bastion of Iranian culture. Guess what? Iranians over time gave it all up instead of defending it stubbornly and forsook the culture, language and traditions of their forefathers, melting away into the shitpot of iraqi demographics and now Anbar is a hellhole full of murderous sunnis who use it as a base to launch terrorist attacks on Shia Shrines, whether of the Emams {A}, Emamzadehs or those of their Companions.

I refuse to give any more ground than we already traded away. Get your house in order, squash sunnism with debate, demographics and force and then swiftly move to repeat the process with karkasparasti/gabarism aka zoroastrianism. And for that, you need to shed this soft-hearted Iranian mentality of compromise that you've held for centuries (it very nearly ended my own family's heritage until I revitalized it).
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
3,270
2
6,060
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Belgium
I will say this simply - if we can't voice the names of the killers of Ahlolbayt {A} and condemn their actions unreservedly, we are no Shia. And we cannot simply limit ourselves just to the killers of Emam Hoseyn {A} just because the other side is more or less forced to condemn them because of the barbarity at Karbala - Emam Aly {A} was Martyred by ebn moljem (LA) on the orders of muawiya (LA) and Hazrate Fatima {S} was killed with Her unborn child Mohsen {A} by omar ibn khattab (LA) who dropped the door on Her, leading to her Martyrdom and She departed this world deprived of Jannat ol Baqi by abu bakr ibn abu qahafa (LA) and omar (LA).

These are the truths our ulema must be free to declare from the pulpit without state pressure restraining them. I'm not saying they be allowed to swear with abusive words from the pulpit, merely that they be allowed to speak on these subjects truthfully and send La'nat as is deserved.

Nobody's preventing our ulema from condemning those actions. Profanity is another matter. So is la'nat when it comes to a token number of key figures dear to Sunni Moslems (such as Aisha). We can criticize and condemn without cursing. It takes nothing away from our beliefs, and helps reduce fitna at a time when the enemy is focusing fully on stoking sectarian divisions within the Islamic world.

they edit their own books of hadith to hide references Shia ulema draw from them to prove the Emami/Jafari fiqh. Such liars and thieves are no Muslims. Even a non-Muslim who doesn't even believe in the Prophet {S} might pick up the Quran and from a philosophical standpoint uncover knowledge that thus far escaped our own scholars - does that make him Muslim? No, of course not and neither does it for the sunnis.

Sunnis are Moslems because they adhere to the principles reflected in the shahada, the unicity of God and Prophethood of Muhammad (sAws) as the Khatam ol-Anbiya, and also because they believe in the Holy Qur'an as the revelated Word of God.

This qualifies a person as Moslem. Being Moslem does not imply that one will necessarily follow the most ideal and most complete path. It is necessary, for the sake of the stability of the Islamic Ommat, to grant this much latitude and inclusiveness when it comes to defining the borders of the fold of Islam.

I'd strongly advise against takfir versus Sunni Moslems, as I do in regards to takfir versus Shia Moslems. Please read up on Islamic rulings regarding takfir and please do tobe.

I won't go into the detail of Safavid rule but Shah Ismail I's rule was outright brutal to sunnis and he spared no thought before unleashing the Qizilbash on them (he butchered uzbeks en masse and made a drinking goblet out of their khan's skull). Shah Abbas I and onwards became more mellow but even they would time to time lash out and massacre/displace sunnis for causing unrest.

Not because they were Sunnis. But due to political antagonisms with foreign and local adversaries. Those resettled for instance were Sorani speakers i.e. Kurds from the western frontier, who were transferred to the Bojnurd area in Khorasan, eastern Iran because the Ottomans were doing propaganda to recruit traitors from amongst them. They weren't resettled because of some general policy against Sunnis.

Claiming otherwise would be like contending that the Islamic Republic intervened in Syria and Iraq due to alleged adversity towards Sunni Islam, which is of course a complete fabrication promoted by the enemies of Iran and Islam.

Islamic Iran will continue supporting the Palestinian cause, as well as other legitimate struggles of Sunni Moslems like she did in Bosnia during the 1990's, no matter how hard the zio-American empire tries to create rifts between Islamic obediences.

Now as far as yasser al-habib goes, I'll be forthcoming - his politics are wrong and disruptive in my view. But his sermons are always on point and he cites his sources for the viewers and in light of that, I refuse to be a sheep and falsely condemn him on religious basis. Nor am I a fan of Shirazis who want to more or less move to a style of governance conceived in Mossadegh's era but if they recite Majles and back their claims with references, I'll definitely listen and acknowledge the truth.

Do you prefer adhering to a current which in all likelihood is backed by the MI6? When have Anglo-Saxon imperialist regimes ever been sponsoring religiously sound movements in the Islamic world? From their promotion of Taymyism in the Arabic Peninsula to Babism / Bahaism in Iran and the Ahmadiya in the Indian subcontinent (with their links to globalism and zionism), to what Imam Khomeini (r) termed as American Islam; the Shirazi sect is no exception.

You can find in Iranian media a plethora of religious arguments which correctly debunk Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives. On various points, the Shirazis are erring on the religious front.

To close, Iranians compromise WAY too much. Look at Anbar in iraq for example - the name itself is Persian and even after the "rashidun" period, the town remained a bastion of Iranian culture. Guess what? Iranians over time gave it all up instead of defending it stubbornly and forsook the culture, language and traditions of their forefathers, melting away into the shitpot of iraqi demographics

This is not false, but it took place quite some time ago.

and now Anbar is a hellhole full of murderous sunnis who use it as a base to launch terrorist attacks on Shia Shrines, whether of the Emams {A}, Emamzadehs or those of their Companions.

Murderous takfiris, not Sunnis. Those takfiris aren't Sunnis. They merely use the mask of Sunni Islam in order to cause fitna among Moslems, with direct and indirect support from the zio-American imperialist enemy.

I refuse to give any more ground than we already traded away. Get your house in order, squash sunnism with debate, demographics and force and then swiftly move to repeat the process with karkasparasti/gabarism aka zoroastrianism. And for that, you need to shed this soft-hearted Iranian mentality of compromise that you've held for centuries (it very nearly ended my own family's heritage until I revitalized it).

Takfirism needs to be squashed, not Sunnism.

The demographic issue is real, however it's not about putting down Sunni Moslems either, but simply about preserving the religious identity and character of Iran. To this effect, there's only one solution: the government must absolutely implement policies designed to increase the fertility rate, including all sorts of incentives to families with two and more children.

There's more at stake here than the denominational composition of Iran's demography, demographic slump is also a major additional threat to the economy, to innovation and to Iran's technological and scientific standing, and also to "ethno"-national and civilizational continuity because once a certain threshold is passed, lasting denatality can only be neutralized through mass immigration.

As for Zoroastrianism, it has almost ceased existing as a live religion practiced by any numerically significant community, and is more often taking the shape of an identitarian and cultural marker, mostly among Iranians of secular nationalist persuasions. Here efforts must concentrate on the cultural and political levels.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
Nobody's preventing our ulema from condemning those actions. Profanity is another matter. So is la'nat when it comes to certain key figures dear to Sunni Moslems (such as Aisha). We can criticize and condemn without cursing. It takes nothing away from our beliefs, and helps reduce fitna at a time when the enemy is focusing fully on stoking sectarian divisions within the Islamic world.
I said La'nat, not cursing. And Allah [SWT] doesn't care who the sunnis consider dear whether it be abu bakr (LA), umar (LA), usman (LA), ayesha (LA) (she instigated arrows being shot at the funeral of Emam Hasan Mojtaba {A} by the way, before you begin to enthusiastically defend her), muawiya (LA), khalid ibn walid (LA)...the list goes on.

And our ulema mention their sources in lectures when they speak on such events...if the sunnis don't like it, too bad. They have the option of tuning it out and not accessing such material in the first place.

Sunnis are Moslems because they adhere to the principles reflected in the shahada, the unicity of God and Prophethood of Muhammad (sAws) as the Khatam ol-Anbiya, and also because they believe in the Holy Qur'an as the revelated Word of God.

This qualifies a person as Moslem. Being Moslem does not imply that one will necessarily follow the most ideal and most complete path. It is necessary, for the sake of the stability of the Islamic Ommat, to grant this much latitude and inclusiveness when it comes to defining the borders of the fold of Islam.

I'd strongly advise against takfir versus Sunni Moslems, as I do in regards to takfir versus Shia Moslems. Please read up on Islamic rulings regarding takfir and please do tobe.
I already said that I consider them reciters of Kalima. That qualifies them to make meat they slaughter halal, food they cook halal and a handful of other things.

The only ones who are Muslim are the ones who believe in the Oneness of Allah, the Prophethood of our Master Mohammad e Mostafa {S} and the Infallibility and Succession of His Holy Progeny {A} (as indeed is Quranic). Sunnis fail on all counts and thus I refuse to regard them as Muslims in the true sense of the word.

Not because they were Sunnis. But due to political antagonisms with foreign and local adversaries.

Claiming otherwise would be like contending that the Islamic Republic intervened in Syria and Iraq due to alleged adversity towards Sunni Islam, which is of course a complete fabrication promoted by the enemies of Iran and Islam.

Islamic Iran will continue supporting the Palestinian cause, as well as other legitimate struggles of Sunni Moslems like she did in Bosnia during the 1990's, no matter how hard the zio-American empire tries to create rifts between Islamic obediences.
By all means, I will gladly respond to Bosnian request for aid in any way possible if they plead in the name of our Prophet {S} and also on humanitarian grounds. I will also happily cheer Palestinian insurgency against isnotreal and demand the loudest for them to be armed adequately to win their engagements. That is separate from my religious convictions and beliefs.

Do you prefer adhering to a current which in all likelihood is backed by the MI6? When have Anglo-Saxon imperialist regimes ever been sponsoring religiously sound movements in the Islamic world? From their promotion of Taymyism in the Arabic Peninsula to Babism / Bahaism in Iran and the Ahmadiya in the Indian subcontinent (with their links to globalism and zionism), to what Imam Khomeini (r) termed as American Islam; the Shirazi sect is no exception.

You can find in Iranian media a plethora of religious arguments which correctly debunk Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives. On various points, the Shirazis are erring on the religious front.
You're going off at a tangent. I've always strongly been against all London has ever done with regards to Iran in the religious, cultural and political sphere and will remain so until our Qaem {ATFS AS HJ} returns to bring them to justice.

And of course, yasser al-habib can indeed quote zaef traditions (whether as an honest mistake or maliciously). There it comes down to debate to determine the correctness of the quoted hadith and for that, both sides need to come down several pegs and sit in a neutral atmosphere to establish what is Haq and what is ba'til. If the other side is erring religiously, then it's our right to correct them and vice versa.

This is not false, but it took place quite some time ago.



Murderous takfiris, not Sunnis. Those takfiris aren't Sunnis. They merely use the mask of Sunni Islam in order to cause fitna among Moslems, with direct and indirect support from the zio-American imperialist enemy.
The trend is continuing even today, Salar, be it among religious Iranian Shias or the other camp. Have you ever heard the kind of music they're making nowadays? It's a disgrace and it's happening on home soil, not even some distant land where some distant Iranian group is losing it's identity.

And no, it's sunnis alright. Sunnis were doing it LONG before america or isnotreal existed...our Five Martyr Ulema were murdered by sunni rules and qazis.

Ottomans would kill one or more of a group going to Karbala as a morbid form of toll tax, even if it was just a mother and her infant. This is all the work of sunnis and takfirism is sunnism unleashed. Don't delude me or yourself with these falsehoods, please and certainly not the Iranian people.

Takfirism needs to be squashed, not Sunnism.

The demographic issue is real, however it's not about putting down Sunni Moslems either, but simply about preserving the religious identity and character of Iran. To this effect, there's only one solution: the government must absolutely implement policies designed to increase the fertility rate, including all sorts of incentives to families with two and more children.

There's more at stake here than the denominational composition of Iran's demography, demographic slump is also a major additional threat to the economy, to innovation and to Iran's technological and scientific standing, and also to "ethno"-national and civilizational continuity because once a certain threshold is passed, lasting denatality can only be neutralized through mass immigration.

As for Zoroastrianism, it has almost ceased existing as a live religion practiced by any numerically significant community, and is more often taking the shape of an identitarian and cultural marker, mostly among Iranians of secular nationalist persuasions. Here efforts must concentrate on the cultural and political levels.
Sunnism needs to be trampled underfoot and exterminated in a deluge of ink and blood, at least in Iran and Greater Iran afterwards. Get the demographics of core Iranic groups up, make sure they're raised in the Shia madhab and do it by whatever means necessary.

And what remains of the rotting corpse of zoroastrianism, feed it to the vultures (as is their own tradition) and turn the page on that chapter of history forever. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
View attachment 884266

What a biblical size collapse.

Shame Solemani ain’t alive. He would at least be transferring game changing weaponry to level the playing field. Who knows what the hell Ghani is doing right now.
No one can save them. Their doctrine itself is flawed and their armour two or three generations out of date.

Besides, why root for them to begin with? I want both sides to bash one another's heads in.
 

sammuel

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 14, 2017
2,160
1
1,097
Country
Israel
Location
Israel
shervin hajipour song not going to lie made me teary af



Seems he was arrested :

Popular Protest Singer Shervin Hajipour Arrested


SEPTEMBER 30, 2022


Shervin Hajipour, an Iranian singer and the singer of the popular protest song "For..." has been arrested by security forces.

The video of the song "For..." was seen more than 34 million times in less than two days on Hajipour’s Instagram page.

But an hour before Hajipour’s arrest, the video was deleted, apparently after Iranian cyber police contacted him and forced him to delete the post. Relatives of the singer say that he was invited for a short interview with the police but was then arrested.




Hajipour had previously written about the song that "The poem of this song was written by you, to relieve your pain."

"For..." refers to countless social media posts by Iranians that, after the death of Mahsa Amini and the beginning of nationwide protests, referred to ongoing social and political developments and uncertainty in Iran over the past several decades.










~
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom