What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,841
-12
9,897
Country
United States
Location
United States
Russia really needs some help to blunt these spearheads, until they can get their mobilized men ready to prop up the front lines and reserves. No word on Iranian UCAVs, either they are being used in fully recon mode or they haven't been deployed yet in numbers.

I said this long ago. Russia will be checkmated by NATO.

Everyone laughed at me.

Putin has no recourse. If he uses tactical nukes, US will go open season (conventionally) on all Russian battlefield assets.

At that point Putin will have to decide between WW3 (conventional or not).

Game Theory shows he will have no good options. If he doesn’t do something game changing his forces will slowly wither away. He lacks shock troops. Protests are starting in Chechneya and Dragestan .

Lastly there is negotiations, which at this point would be tantamount to capitulation. I don’t see Ukraine letting Russia keep any land not even Crimea. They are emboldened by this war and now have a battle hardened force much like SAA.
 

Stryker1982

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
3,905
-2
6,768
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
I said this long ago. Russia will be checkmated by NATO.

Everyone laughed at me.

Putin has no recourse. If he uses tactical nukes, US will go open season (conventionally) on all Russian battlefield assets.

At that point Putin will have to decide between WW3 (conventional or not).

Game Theory shows he will have no good options. If he doesn’t do something game changing his forces will slowly wither away. He lacks shock troops. Protests are starting in Chechneya and Dragestan .

Lastly there is negotiations, which at this point would be tantamount to capitulation. I don’t see Ukraine letting Russia keep any land not even Crimea. They are emboldened by this war and now have a battle hardened force much like SAA.
His only option is to commit further, as in partial mobilization, with the expectation that even more than 300,000+ should be ready to be trained, and increase this number further. He can do partial mobilization to get the numbers he needs, but here in is the supply issues that now has to be dealt with, when having such a large force. Considering he has virtually no material support, he will also have to convert his economy to prepare for a war economy to produce all the equipment they need, and get ready to fight like how we did. Frankly he needs about 1mil+ men right now to win this war. He seems to be easing into it over time. Either this, or prepare to lose.

Whether Russian people will tolerate such decisions remains to be seen. I have to say, I don't expect the average Russian person, to be as motivated as how our soldiers were, when they were ecstatic following the revolution.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
5,841
-12
9,897
Country
United States
Location
United States
Whether Russian people will tolerate such decisions remains to be seen. I have to say, I don't expect the average Russian person, to be as motivated as how our soldiers were, when they were ecstatic following the revolution.

It would be like Iran mobilizing 1M+ soldiers to invade Afghanistan.

Would the public support that? No of course not. They will say what does Afghanistan have to do with us (wether right or wrong is irrelevant). They will say who cares if Taliban are Facist.

The issue is countries like USA have a contract force who will fight no matter what wether popular or unpopular. What helps the USA is there wars are low casualty affairs and easy to “blend” in the background noise of day to day life. But even then we saw how unpopular Iraq war became.

So Russia cannot mobilize 1M soldiers because this isn’t 1942 anymore. Like many within Iranian population, most Russians rather be kissing American a** rather than fighting it. Defending your country isn’t a thing anymore, all your average citizen cares about is himself.

It should be a wake up call for Iranian military leaders about how much domestic support they will have in a shootout with the US/Israel.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
3,269
2
6,059
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Belgium
La'nat in Islamic terminology is to appeal to Allah [SWT] to remove the blessings from the wrongdoer and visit punishment upon them. And la'nat comes under tabarra, which is part of Furooh-e-Deen.

Emam Sadegh {A} was visited by a Companion of His who said, "So and so is a person proclaiming his love for Ahlolbayt {A}." The Emam {A} responded he was a liar for he refused to condemn Their enemies. Those who keep silent in such matters are also wrongdoers and in Surah al-Kahf, the punishment is proscribed that they'll have boiling water that burns their flesh tossed in their faces in Hell.

It is our duty to send La'nat on the enemies of Ahlolbayt {A} failing which we have strayed from the Path of Allah [SWT].

The English word for this would be 'to curse'. The Supreme Leader issued a fatwa against cursing certain key figures revered by Sunni Moslems, which doesn't preclude denouncing their wrongdoings. I'd advise against accusing the Leader and the great majority of maraje' of having strayed from the path of God. Something that would amount to a break with Shia tradition. The marjai'at is a red line.

Sorry to say but no, they aren't. I've seen tarawih events in Mashad which is one of our holiest cities. Emam Aly {A} hated that bi'dah practice so much He sent Emam Hasan {A} with a dagger to break up the proceedings during His reign. I've seen sunni speakers invited to Islamic Centers run by Iran abroad and they had the gall to praise aisha (LA) from the pulpit and no one cut off their mic and pulled them down.

From the same pulpits of those Islamic Centers sponsored by the Islamic Republic, other ulema routinely explain the Shia view. Again, defusing zionist-hatched plots, displaying akhlaq and fulfilling Islamic duties of reaching out to Moslems of other denominations does not equal compromising on or diluting one's beliefs. There's a clear line between these two sets of attitudes.

That the woman who ordered arrows rained on the funeral of our Emam {A} was allowed to be praised unchallenged in our mosque is a shame. Plus take the case of that bastard khaled meshal (former hamas secretary general) - the pedar sag actually walked into a Shia masjid with his shoes on when visiting Iran in ahmadinejad's time and instead of castrating him, pulling off his limbs and torturing his to a mess before beheading him, the Iranian government covered this up.

I support the Revolution 80% of the way but the 20% problems I have are ones like these I mentioned.

Well, now you transitioned rather rapidly from validating Iran's support for the Palestinian Resistance, to insulting one of its leaders and advocating to 'torture him to death'... I cannot see the consistency here, nor could I frankly conceive of a way to spin sense into this type of a contradiction.

Let's face it, the discourse promoted by the Shirazis serves as an asset to the zionist enemy in that it will inevitably end up taking aim at Iran's principled assistance to the Palestinian cause, be it in an indirect manner. From past observation, I can say that one of their infiltration tactics in our midst consists in proclaiming, "I support the Islamic Revolution politically, but on the religious level I think Yaser al-Habib is a better defender of the Shia" (when of course they oppose the Islamic Revolution from the ground up). What this is ultimately bound to result in, however, ough to be obvious.

Sorry, those who believe Allah [SWT] has the appearance of a beardless boy sitting on a throne with his flesh hanging off from either side and sticks his feet into hell to satisfy it's demands are no Muslims. And that's not even going into their views of the Prophet {S}, the Ahlolbayt {A}, the Quran and more.

I'd advise you to read their sahih al-bukhari (the 1960s edition - once Shia ulema began pointing out the problematic narrations in it, their subsequent editions were heavily revised and they even removed many legitimate hadith regarding Ahlolbayt {A} from it.

Islamic rulings on takfir cannot be sidelined by anyone. In other terms, us common persons cannot take it upon ourselves to venture into this territory, scholarly ijma' is required to do so. And there's no such thing in regards to our Sunni brothers in Islam.

Nor can we cite odd ahadith and conclude that Sunnis in general are holding such beliefs. This method would be hardly different from the modus operandi of anti-Shia takfiri propagandists. We mustn't emulate their faulty ways.

In order to gauge the Sunni perspective, it's necessary to establish a non-selective breakdown of scholarly interpretation of said hadith by the most influential Sunni ulema. I'm certain that on this very forum, any survey among Sunni Moslem users will show that a significant majority do not share anthropomorphic representations of God.

I'm no adherent of the Shirazis, Salar jan. I merely say that when they say something right, it is right and nothing can make it wrong and the same goes from the Velayat-e-Faqih camp.

What they're saying on the topic of Sunni Islam isn't right.

No, you will NOT find instances of Shia ulema or rulers concocting conspiracies to have sunni priests entrapped, put through fraudulent court proceedings and killed in ways like the Five Martyrs. We haven't gone around entombing people in walls or burning their books (quite the opposite, we studied them) and debated their ulema (sunnis end up killing ours because they can't stand us speaking our viewpoint and them having no answer to it).

This is not what my point was about. I was hinting to historic instances of peaceful coexistence and constructive cooperation between Sunni and Shia Moslems.

Furthermore, in your foregoing post you seemed to speak favorably of violent acts you attributed to the Safavids, while interpreting them as being directed against Sunnis. Leaving aside the fact that those were not attacks on Sunnis per se, and that they weren't motivated by religious animosity but represented geopolitical battles fought against foreign adversaries (Ottoman empire and Uzbek khanates), based on your own assumptions there's a contradiction between the two statements.

While you're at it, al-Azhar isn't that place's name. The mosque was called al-Zahra {A} and was stolen from Shia by the sunnis who are occupying it. Yes, it's a Fatimid era mosque, go figure.

All nice and well, however I was referring to the Sunni institution going by that name, and to its contributions to Islamic unity, rather than debating the above.

Oh and by the way, we're not obligated to "appease ties" but to keep the peace while upholding the truth.

This is somehow akin to another line promoted by the Shirazi clan. However we're obligated to work towards Islamic solidarity while staying true to our teachings. The Shirazi clan is deviating from this insofar as sermons they hold tend to undermine the harmony between Islamic denominations, much like their Taymyist counterparts.

And those existential enemies you speak of are largely sunnis - turks, arabs, pakistanis, central asians and even north caucasians all are overwhelmingly sunnis and most of them speak ill of the Shia creed and Iranians (particularly turks who aren't salafists - even during their secularist era where they hated Islam, they persecuted Alevis on their inborn sunni biases; Kurds do the same while larping as gabars/atheists but will still call you a "Son of Mu'tah" which I don't mind since it's halal but you see the thought process).

These groups as said are being propped up by none other than the zio-American empire. It's the empire which engineered, designed, created, funded them, and it's the empire's military, intelligence and propaganda apparatus which is handling them with the purpose of launching aggressions against the Axis of Resistance.

I needn't remind who's behind al-CIA-da, who's behind "I"SIS and so on. They're nothing but patsies and tools in the hands of NATO and the zionists, lacking autonomous relevance of their own in this day and age.

Compared to western and zionist imperialists, Turkey for its part does not pose that much of an overwhelming threat to Iran. Then again, most of the outstanding bilateral issues are immediately stemming from Ankara's inclusion into the NATO orbit.

There is no brotherhood between Haq and ba'til and thus Shia and sunni can never cooperate on religious matters. Political issues are workable, so are cultural ones but that's as far as it goes.

There is one Islamic ommat which is inclusive of both Shia and Sunni Moslems. Political cooperation is performed on grounds of solidarity with co-religionists, an Islamic duty, and not simply in pursuit of classic nation-state interests (although even from the latter perspective, it's indispensable to assist the anti-zionist Resistance in Palestine, for instance).

I don't seeing their complete inaction with regards to sketching portraits of the Masoomeen {A} (completely haram) and those dramas where they enact the Tragedy of Karbala (Astaghfir-Allah, they even get someone to portray Emam Hoseyn {A} in caricature).
What can I say when no marja in Iran ever issues an edict against such blasphemous things,

About depictions of the a'emme, the following rulings are valid ones:

https://hadana.ir/حکم-تصویر-و-نقاشی-چهره-امامان/

About ta'zie:

آیا جایز است کسی در مراسم تعزیه خوانی در مسجد، در نقش امام معصوم (ع) ایفای نقش نماید؟​

پاسخ اجمالی​

اگر مشتمل بر دروغ نبوده و موجب بی احترامی به امام معصوم (ع) نباشد اشکالی ندارد.

ضمائم:

پاسخ مراجع عظام تقلید نسبت به این سؤال، چنین است:

حضرت آیت الله العظمی خامنه ای (مد ظله العالی):
اگر مشتمل بر دروغ و وَهْن مذهب نباشد و هتک حرمت هم محسوب نشود، اشکال ندارد لکن بهتر است به جاى آن مجالس وعظ و خطابه برپا شود و شرکت در آن فى نفسه اشکال ندارد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی مکارم شیرازی (مد ظله العالی):
اگر امر خلاف شرعى در آن نباشد (مانند روایات دروغ، و استعمال آلات لهو، و پوشیدن لباس زنان توسط مردان و مانند آن،) و موجب هتک مقدّسات نشود، اشکالى ندارد.
اما چنانچه این کار در مواقعی موجب مزاحمت برای نمازگزاران در مسجد باشد باید پرهیز گردد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی صافی گلپایگانی (مد ظله العالی):
اصل تعزیه چنانچه مشتمل بر اکاذیب و آلات حرام نباشد فی نفسه مانعی ندارد ولی انجام این امور در مسجد باید منافات با وضع مسجد نداشته باشد.
حضرت آیت الله هادوی تهرانی (دامت برکاته):
اگر رعایت احترام امام (ع) شود و هتک نباشد، اشکالی ندارد.​

Interestingly, ta'zie originated during the Safavid era (which you appeared to consider as a reference).

Also, the Alevi tradition you mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, happens to be in a wholly different league in terms of heterodoxy.

This being said, I'd still take portraits and ta'zie over suggestions that pilgrims at Karbala ought to get walked over by horses, as advocated by one presenter on a satellite broadcaster linked to the Shirazi clan.

let alone confront that sunni infidel rubbish encroaching into Islam?

Sunnis are Moslems as per consensus of our sources of emulation. Takfir against Sunnis is a malpractice which directly plays into the hands of the enemies of Islam and feeds their divide and conquer habits. Hence why the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and company are promoting any and all violent divisive talk against either denomination of Islam, for they seek to plunge the Islamic world into relentless fitna.

It won't come to civil war if you decode the strategy of the average karkasparast/sunni/kurd/arab/turanist in Iran. There are different ways to deal with them - look into the practices of the Stasi, for example. Zersetzung should be used by isolating leaders and tormenting them until they go insane or commit suicide.

Recently, there was a thread about the recent riots on 4Chan too. You know what one guy said there? "These guys white knighting for the roasties rioting in the street are simps. The Iranian police should shoot all of the females and the simps will run back home."

It struck me then - even a 4Chan poster has the right idea on how to deal with Iranian internal politics. Meanwhile, the nezam is in limbo, refusing to either crush these regular protests of every 2 years with tiananmen square style force and yet also unwilling to liberalize (they shouldn't, of course). If they want to remain an Islamic Republic and not become a gabar republic, then force needs to be used. Break skulls first and then pour sense in through the cracks with words, I say.

Iranian youth are lost and frankly morally bankrupt. Look inside the average middle class Iranian home. A man with daughters spoils them sick while he beats up his sons like dogs to assuage his sense of manhood like a beta male. I myself chewed out many spoiled Iranian bitches and they always screamed, "HOW CAN THIS MAN SPEAK TO ME IN THIS WAY WHEN EVEN MY BABA DIDN'T?!"

I'm not like your average Iranian dokhtar's cuckold baba who kisses her arse. Why are you putting women on pedestals they don't belong, brother? Our Prophet {s} Himself said that a beautiful woman in an evil environment is like a flower sprouting in mud (or a rubbish dump). Giving in to Eve's nagging got Adam cast out of Heaven, after all.

In regards to this, and even though I do believe that the Islamic Republic could step up certain control measures - although not necessarily or exclusively the ones mentionned above (as explained before, in the realm of soft / cultural war, it'll be hard to expect grandiose results until and unless the enemy's channels of influence are interrupted, read undesired internet sites and satellite TV), I don't think the use of vocabulary such as "Iranian bitches" is becoming of either a religious or a patriotic person - which is not to say that I endorse any form of feminism.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
I
The English word for this is 'to curse'. The Supreme Leader issued a fatwa against cursing certain key figures revered by Sunni Moslems, which doesn't preclude denouncing their wrongdoings. I'd advise against accusing the Leader and the great majority of maraje' of having strayed from the path of God. Something that would break with Shia tradition. The marjai'at is a red line to us.



From the same pulpits of those Islamic Centers sponsored by the Islamic Republic, other ulema routinely explain the Shia view. Again, defusing zionist-hatched plots, displaying akhlaq and fulfilling Islamic duties of reaching out to Moslems of other denominations does not equal compromising on or diluting one's beliefs. There's a clear line between these two sets of attitudes.



Well, now you transitioned rather rapidly from validating Iran's support for the Palestinian Resistance, to insulting one of its leaders and advocating to 'torture him to death'... I cannot see the consistency here, nor could I frankly conceive of a way to spin sense into this type of a contradiction.

Let's face it, the discourse promoted by the Shirazis serves as an asset to the zionist enemy in that it will inevitably end up taking aim at Iran's principled assistance to the Palestinian cause, be it in an indirect manner. From past observation, I can say that one their infiltration tactics in our midst consists in proclaiming, "I support the Islamic Revolution politically, but on the religious level I think Yaser al-Habib is a better defender of the Shia". What this is ultimately bound to result in, however, ough to be obvious.



Islamic rulings on takfir cannot be sidelined by anyone. In other terms, us common persons cannot take it upon ourselves to venture into this territory, scholarly ijma' is required to do so. And there's no such thing in regards to our Sunni brothers in Islam.

Nor can we cite odd ahadith and conclude that Sunnis in general are holding such beliefs. This method would be hardly different from the modus operandi of anti-Shia takfiri propagandists. We mustn't emulate their faulty ways.

In order to gauge the Sunni perspective, it's necessary to establish a non-selective breakdown of scholarly interpretation of said hadith by the most influential Sunni ulema. I'm certain that on this very forum, any survey among Sunni Moslem users will show that a significant majority do not share anthropomorphic representations of God.



What they're saying on the topic of Sunni Islam isn't right.



This is not what my point was about. I was hinting to historic instances of peaceful coexistence and constructive cooperation between Sunni and Shia Moslems.

Furthermore, in your foregoing post you seemed to speak favorably of violent acts you attributed to the Safavids, while interpreting them as being directed against Sunnis. Leaving aside the fact that those were not attacks on Sunnis per se, and that they weren't motivated by religious animosity but represented geopolitical battles fought against foreign adversaries (Ottoman empire and Uzbek khanates), based on your own assumptions there's a contradiction between the two statements.



This is all nice and well, however I'm referring to the Sunni institution going by that name, and to its contributions to Islamic unity, rather than debating the above.



This is akin to another line promoted by the Shirazi clan. However we're obligated to work towards Islamic solidarity while staying true to our teachings. The Shirazi clan is deviating from this insofar as sermons they hold tend to undermine the harmony between Islamic denominations, much like their Taymyist counterparts.



These groups as said are being propped up by none other than the zio-American empire. It's the empire which engineered, designed, created, funded them, and it's the empire's military, intelligence and propaganda apparatus which is handling them with the purpose of launching aggressions against the Axis of Resistance.

I needn't remind who's behind al-CIA-da, who's behind "I"SIS and so on. They're nothing but tools in the hands of NATO and the zionists.

Compared to the western and zionist imperialists, Turkey for its part does not pose that much of an overwhelming threat to Iran. Then again, most of the outstanding issues are immediately stemming from Ankara's inclusion into the NATO orbit.



There is one Islamic ommat which is inclusive of both Shia and Sunni Moslems. Political cooperation is performed on grounds of solidarity with co-religionists, an Islamic duty, and not simply in pursuit of classic nation-state interests (although even from the latter perspective, it's indispensable to assist the anti-zionist Resistance in Palestine, for instance).




About depictions of the a'emme, the following rulings are valid ones:

https://hadana.ir/حکم-تصویر-و-نقاشی-چهره-امامان/

About ta'zie:

آیا جایز است کسی در مراسم تعزیه خوانی در مسجد، در نقش امام معصوم (ع) ایفای نقش نماید؟​

پاسخ اجمالی​

اگر مشتمل بر دروغ نبوده و موجب بی احترامی به امام معصوم (ع) نباشد اشکالی ندارد.

ضمائم:

پاسخ مراجع عظام تقلید نسبت به این سؤال، چنین است:

حضرت آیت الله العظمی خامنه ای (مد ظله العالی):
اگر مشتمل بر دروغ و وَهْن مذهب نباشد و هتک حرمت هم محسوب نشود، اشکال ندارد لکن بهتر است به جاى آن مجالس وعظ و خطابه برپا شود و شرکت در آن فى نفسه اشکال ندارد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی مکارم شیرازی (مد ظله العالی):
اگر امر خلاف شرعى در آن نباشد (مانند روایات دروغ، و استعمال آلات لهو، و پوشیدن لباس زنان توسط مردان و مانند آن،) و موجب هتک مقدّسات نشود، اشکالى ندارد.
اما چنانچه این کار در مواقعی موجب مزاحمت برای نمازگزاران در مسجد باشد باید پرهیز گردد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی صافی گلپایگانی (مد ظله العالی):
اصل تعزیه چنانچه مشتمل بر اکاذیب و آلات حرام نباشد فی نفسه مانعی ندارد ولی انجام این امور در مسجد باید منافات با وضع مسجد نداشته باشد.
حضرت آیت الله هادوی تهرانی (دامت برکاته):
اگر رعایت احترام امام (ع) شود و هتک نباشد، اشکالی ندارد.​

Interestingly, ta'zie originated during the Safavid era.

Also, the Alevi tradition in Turkey, which you mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, happens to be in a wholly different league in terms of heterodoxy.

This being said, I'd still take portraits and ta'zie over suggestions that pilgrims at Karbala ought to get walked over by horses, as advocated by one presenter on a satellite broadcaster linked to the Shirazi clan.



Sunnis are Moslems as per consensus of our sources of emulation. Takfir against Sunnis is a malpractice which directly plays into the hands of the enemies of Islam and feeds their divide and conquer habits. Hence why the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and company are promoting any and all violent divisive talk against either denomination of Islam, for they seek to plunge the Islamic world into relentless fitna.



In regards to this, and even though I do believe that the Islamic Republic could step up certain control measures - although not necessarily or exclusively the ones mentionned above (as explained before, in the realm of soft / cultural war, it'll be hard to expect grandiose results until and unless the enemy's channels of influence are interrupted, read undesired internet sites and satellite TV), I don't think the use of vocabulary such as "Iranian bitches" is becoming of either a religious or a patriotic person - which is not to say that I endorse any form of feminism.
I'll get to you after breakfast - I can't handle this word salad on an empty stomach.
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
Sectarianism
The English word for this would be 'to curse'. The Supreme Leader issued a fatwa against cursing certain key figures revered by Sunni Moslems, which doesn't preclude denouncing their wrongdoings. I'd advise against accusing the Leader and the great majority of maraje' of having strayed from the path of God. Something that would amount to a break with Shia tradition. The marjai'at is a red line.
Me saying, "I hope ayesha (LA) is stripped, whipped unceasingly and has heated metal rods thrust into her orifices in hell" is cursing.

Me saying, "May Allah [SWT] punish ayesha (LA) for her sins and transgressions in Hell" is La'nat.

Please, learn the distinction between the two. And I follow Ayatollah Sistani, not Ayatollah Khamenei - I don't interfere in the affairs of who wants to follow him or not; that's between them, the Marja in question and Allah [SWT].


From the same pulpits of those Islamic Centers sponsored by the Islamic Republic, other ulema routinely explain the Shia view. Again, defusing zionist-hatched plots, displaying akhlaq and fulfilling Islamic duties of reaching out to Moslems of other denominations does not equal compromising on or diluting one's beliefs. There's a clear line between these two sets of attitudes.
I'm sorry, if you "etihad" means compromising on matters of Faith and Fiqh to uphold some twisted cultural/political alliance, then it's pretty shameful and a betrayal of Ahlolbayt {A}.

You may as well not invite sunnis into our masjids and do the same by training Shia attendees on how to conduct themselves while simultaneously teaching them the truth about the enemies and killers of Ahlolbayt {A} (all of them, including the ones who martyred our Bibi jan {A}).

Well, now you transitioned rather rapidly from validating Iran's support for the Palestinian Resistance, to insulting one of its leaders and advocating to 'torture him to death'... I cannot see the consistency here, nor could I frankly conceive of a way to spin sense into this type of a contradiction.
Yeah, I did because khaled meshal was a whoreson who insulted the sanctity of a Masjid/Hosseiniyeh and also separately betrayed Iran in syria (my anger is more about the disrespect he showed; I always knew the hamas infidels would ditch us because they are sunnis).

Compare this to Fath al-Shiqaqi who founded Islamic Jihad. He would never do this and kept a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini with him.

Let's face it, the discourse promoted by the Shirazis serves as an asset to the zionist enemy in that it will inevitably end up taking aim at Iran's principled assistance to the Palestinian cause, be it in an indirect manner. From past observation, I can say that one of their infiltration tactics in our midst consists in proclaiming, "I support the Islamic Revolution politically, but on the religious level I think Yaser al-Habib is a better defender of the Shia" (when of course they oppose the Islamic Revolution from the ground up). What this is ultimately bound to result in, however, ough to be obvious.
Yes, I'm glad to see you're opening your mind. Your enemies can indeed be truthful on certain issues and yasser al-habib has indeed addressed the issues the Islamic Republic hasn't got the balls to broach, sorry as I'm to say this because my political loyalty is with Tehran.

I don't oppose Iranian assistance to palestinian organizations one bit. In fact, I want it to be stepped up considerably to arm them into a formidable opponent which can breach the barriers that separate the West Bank and Gaza from the occupied territories in force. Doesn't mean I can't acknowledge how much of Shia-haters palestinians are (and you may ask the Lebanese about it - they have experience regarding this).

Islamic rulings on takfir cannot be sidelined by anyone. In other terms, us common persons cannot take it upon ourselves to venture into this territory, scholarly ijma' is required to do so. And there's no such thing in regards to our Sunni brothers in Islam.

Nor can we cite odd ahadith and conclude that Sunnis in general are holding such beliefs. This method would be hardly different from the modus operandi of anti-Shia takfiri propagandists. We mustn't emulate their faulty ways.

In order to gauge the Sunni perspective, it's necessary to establish a non-selective breakdown of scholarly interpretation of said hadith by the most influential Sunni ulema. I'm certain that on this very forum, any survey among Sunni Moslem users will show that a significant majority do not share anthropomorphic representations of God.
We have every right to call a spade a spade. Sunnism rests entirely on the "Six Sahih Books" of which Sahih al-Bukhari is one and all four sunni schools of thoughts have a consensus on it, such that they persecute any sunnis who question their authenticity.

In light of this, the hadith I speak of from Sahih al-Bukhari is one which their scholars regard as truthful and I'm merely declaring them as mushrikeen, rightfully so. Sunnis should have no complaints given I'm pretty much playing by their system here.

What they're saying on the topic of Sunni Islam isn't right.
Quite the contrary, they are speaking the truths the Islamic Republic and even non-Islamic Republic aligned Shia self-censor.

Grotesque as their politics is, they are merely bringing the hidden to light.

This is not what my point was about. I was hinting to historic instances of peaceful coexistence and constructive cooperation between Sunni and Shia Moslems.

Furthermore, in your foregoing post you seemed to speak favorably of violent acts you attributed to the Safavids, while interpreting them as being directed against Sunnis. Leaving aside the fact that those were not attacks on Sunnis per se, and that they weren't motivated by religious animosity but represented geopolitical battles fought against foreign adversaries (Ottoman empire and Uzbek khanates), based on your own assumptions there's a contradiction between the two statements.
Don't spin this around. The Safavid clan was a tragic one where Shaykh Junayd, Shaykh Haydar and Ali Mirza Safavi were all killed off by sunnis. Shah Ismail I's blitz across the plateau was largely vengeful but yes, he did kill sunnis including their priests who instigated their fellow infidel brethren to take up arms and attack Shias.

None of the Safavid rulers lured sunni muftis to court to poison them or slapped false charges on them with the help of a mujtahid to have them crucified and the like.

The difference between their conduct and ours is proof enough we can never coexist religiously.

All nice and well, however I was referring to the Sunni institution going by that name, and to its contributions to Islamic unity, rather than debating the above.



This is somehow akin to another line promoted by the Shirazi clan. However we're obligated to work towards Islamic solidarity while staying true to our teachings. The Shirazi clan is deviating from this insofar as sermons they hold tend to undermine the harmony between Islamic denominations, much like their Taymyist counterparts.

Oh, you want to ignore "al-azhar's" origin? Fine, there are countless muftis there who have discounted Shia as Muslims across generations and the "Muslim brotherhood" which draws membership from trained priests from that institution has the same view as said by the late mohammad morsi, "Shia are worse than jews (Astaghfir-Allah)."

NO. Putting the "Shirazi" label on it because it's convenient won't work. We cannot one on hand proclaim love for Ahlolbayt {A} and then allow the very ideology and practices they opposed to blossom under our care. Wake up.

These groups as said are being propped up by none other than the zio-American empire. It's the empire which engineered, designed, created, funded them, and it's the empire's military, intelligence and propaganda apparatus which is handling them with the purpose of launching aggressions against the Axis of Resistance.

I needn't remind who's behind al-CIA-da, who's behind "I"SIS and so on. They're nothing but patsies and tools in the hands of NATO and the zionists, lacking autonomous relevance of their own in this day and age.

Compared to western and zionist imperialists, Turkey for its part does not pose that much of an overwhelming threat to Iran. Then again, most of the outstanding bilateral issues are immediately stemming from Ankara's inclusion into the NATO orbit.
First of all, stop pretending this problem is 200 years old. It's not.

Sunnis were a menace even before England was properly unified, before america even became a concept or before the balfour declaration was drafted.

The problem goes back to the Prophet's {S} funeral bed and all that stemmed from it. And need I remind you that sunni turks were prosecuting pilgrims to Karbala long before WWI erupted and arab bandits in particular preyed on Shia pilgrims for sectarian reasons, primarily to slaughter. There was even a saying among sunnis then and now too that whoever kills 7 Rafidhis has bought Heaven.

All this current hostility has been nurtured over 14 centuries but apparently, you've willingly poked out your eyes to blind yourself to it because it kicks out the stool from under your flimsy political stance otherwise.

There is one Islamic ommat which is inclusive of both Shia and Sunni Moslems. Political cooperation is performed on grounds of solidarity with co-religionists, an Islamic duty, and not simply in pursuit of classic nation-state interests (although even from the latter perspective, it's indispensable to assist the anti-zionist Resistance in Palestine, for instance).
Incorrect. Go back and read what I said about the hadith of the beardless boy God (Astaghfir-Allah) earlier and scroll up in this post to read about Sahih al-Bukhari's reputation among sunnis.

About depictions of the a'emme, the following rulings are valid ones:

https://hadana.ir/حکم-تصویر-و-نقاشی-چهره-امامان/

About ta'zie:

آیا جایز است کسی در مراسم تعزیه خوانی در مسجد، در نقش امام معصوم (ع) ایفای نقش نماید؟

پاسخ اجمالی

اگر مشتمل بر دروغ نبوده و موجب بی احترامی به امام معصوم (ع) نباشد اشکالی ندارد.

ضمائم:

پاسخ مراجع عظام تقلید نسبت به این سؤال، چنین است:

حضرت آیت الله العظمی خامنه ای (مد ظله العالی):
اگر مشتمل بر دروغ و وَهْن مذهب نباشد و هتک حرمت هم محسوب نشود، اشکال ندارد لکن بهتر است به جاى آن مجالس وعظ و خطابه برپا شود و شرکت در آن فى نفسه اشکال ندارد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی مکارم شیرازی (مد ظله العالی):
اگر امر خلاف شرعى در آن نباشد (مانند روایات دروغ، و استعمال آلات لهو، و پوشیدن لباس زنان توسط مردان و مانند آن،) و موجب هتک مقدّسات نشود، اشکالى ندارد.
اما چنانچه این کار در مواقعی موجب مزاحمت برای نمازگزاران در مسجد باشد باید پرهیز گردد.
حضرت آیت الله العظمی صافی گلپایگانی (مد ظله العالی):
اصل تعزیه چنانچه مشتمل بر اکاذیب و آلات حرام نباشد فی نفسه مانعی ندارد ولی انجام این امور در مسجد باید منافات با وضع مسجد نداشته باشد.
حضرت آیت الله هادوی تهرانی (دامت برکاته):
اگر رعایت احترام امام (ع) شود و هتک نباشد، اشکالی ندارد.
Sorry, I don't speak Persian so I'll need a translation. Besides, I'll have to run it through Ayatollah Sistani once as well but as far as I'm aware, his edict is that sketching pictures and displaying them in live or inanimate caricatures is haram.

Given that Islam forbids it sternly for the Prophet {S}, we cannot do that for His Successors {A} either given the context of Hadith al-Saqlayn.

Sunnis were the first ones to start taziyeh. They used to display usman's (LA) bloodstained tunic and his wife's severed fingers every year until the Tragedy of Karbala and then when the topic of Emam Hoseyn's {A} bloodied garment was brought up, the ditched it altogether because they didn't want to condemn the killer of the Prophet's{S} Grandson {A}.

Nobody is asking to be trampled by horses or rubbing wet mud on yourself. Sinazani is fine, tossing dry earth over your head is also, as is zanjeer-zani and tatbir.

I'll go off at a tangent and mention even Hazrate Adam (A) and many Messengers (A) mourned by beating themselves bloody in grief and no Allah [SWT] never chided them. As for the other argument that is looks ugly, well the stampede during Hajj between Safa and Marwa and stoning of the Shayateen is hilarious to non-Muslims as well. But we wouldn't change the rituals of Hajj and nor should we for Moharram either.

Sunnis are Moslems as per consensus of our sources of emulation. Takfir against Sunnis is a malpractice which directly plays into the hands of the enemies of Islam and feeds their divide and conquer habits. Hence why the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and company are promoting any and all violent divisive talk against either denomination of Islam, for they seek to plunge the Islamic world into relentless fitna.
You can mention CIA, SIS, Mossad, AMAN, Gestapo, Stasi and the Kempetei as well. It won't undo the fact their madhab is one filled with shirk, bid'ah, a deliberate falsification of the office of Prophethood and Emamate and purposeful misunderstanding of the Quran.

And that's where yasser al-habib and allahyari come in - for all their provocations and faults, they don't let them slither away unchallenged.

In regards to this, and even though I do believe that the Islamic Republic could step up certain control measures - although not necessarily or exclusively the ones mentionned above (as explained before, in the realm of soft / cultural war, it'll be hard to expect grandiose results until and unless the enemy's channels of influence are interrupted, read undesired internet sites and satellite TV), I don't think the use of vocabulary such as "Iranian bitches" is becoming of either a religious or a patriotic person - which is not to say that I endorse any form of feminism.
Those filthy gabar jendeha outright declare themselves to be "badass bitches". Why are you upset at me calling them the same word they use for themselves?

And finally, you said something right - the Islamic Republic's moftkhori and insistence on outsourcing since the days of that baboon ahmadinejad and that swine rouhani is what hobbled the semiconductor industry and SIGINT.

Moreover, the Nezam has a narrow-minded boomer approach to television programming - most clergy are ignorant of Iranian culture too. If it wasn't for me mentioning Bandari Iranian women covered their heads prior to Islam, nobody would know...that's how bad your condition is right now.

And yes, you do need to step up control measures in the exact directions I indicated, pal. Sunnis/haramis can be riddled with bullets to suppress their fitna, so can gabars/zoroastrians. Their ideologies of falsehood will return if you don't address them, though.
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
Russia really needs some help to blunt these spearheads, until they can get their mobilized men ready to prop up the front lines and reserves. No word on Iranian UCAVs, either they are being used in fully recon mode or they haven't been deployed yet in numbers.
Selling them UAVs was a calculated risk. We now know they function pretty well in environments with heavy air defences and electronic warfare but russia losing the war would automatically lower their market value.
 

Sardar330

FULL MEMBER
Feb 11, 2022
676
0
1,049
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
اینا از یه طرف میخان راه چند هزار ساله ی ما رو به اروپا قطع کنند !

بعد از اونطرف هم میخان خودشون هاب صادرات انرژی به اروپا بشن !

بی ناموسی در حد لا لیگا !!!!!

20221004_165940.jpg
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
On the one hand, they want to cut off our thousands-year-old path to Europe!

After that, they want to become the hub of energy exports to Europe!

Dishonest to the extent of La Liga!!!!!

View attachment 884609
Greece has a huge maritime economic zone 🙀...I kind of see why the turks are angry although of course, I don't support them in the least.

In English, la'nat kardan is translated as 'to curse'.

View attachment 884544

At any rate, the Supreme Leader's fatwa as well as the the standpoint of other maraje' including ones like Vahid Khorasani (whom British turban supporters at one point tried to portray as being on board with their malpractice, until he was interviewed about la'ne 'alani and spoke out against it), cover both definitions of the term.



Read again what you quoted.



Because our ulema haven't been open about their positions on these issues? The whole point of inviting a Sunni speaker to a Shia Islamic Center is to uphold Islamic unity despite differences, which are overshadowed by commonalities.



Hamas didn't ditch Iran, they supported the opposite side during the Syrian war, essentially in a verbal manner but their relationship with Iran was never severed, relative ups and downs notwithstanding.

And the reason behind this choice of theirs has nothing to do with them being Sunni Moslems, the majority of the Syrian Arab Army's personnel has consisted of Sunni Moslems as well. Hamas' positioning had more to do with their political affiliations, and the wrong outlook of the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Also, since you seem to be adamant about precepts of religion, what is the shari' sanction again for calling someone a prostitute without proof, namely how many lashes does it consist of?



This would be another self-contradicting statement. Indeed, Shaqaqi the Sunni Moslem.

Or rather three contradictions at once. For Imam Khomeini's (r.A.a.) ideology explicitly stressed Islamic unity (i.e. Shia-Sunni unity), and martyr Fathi Shaqaqi was a follower of this same ideology of unity.

http://qodsna.com/en/347395/Fathi-Shaqaqi-symbol-of-Shia-Sunni-unity

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/imam-khomeini-islamic-unity-sayyid-ruhullah-musawi-khomeini


We can also cite our heroic martyr hajj Qasem Soleimani, who stated that if a Shia Islamic movement was to make its appearance in Occupied Palestine, he will not be supporting it. That he is only going to work with organizations staffed by Sunnis in Palestine.

So, all these references are worlds apart from the discourse you've expressed about Sunni Moslems. There's simply no way to combine a Shirazi-style take on Sunni Islam with adherence to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. They're fundamentally antinomic.



You misunderstood me. I was denouncing an infiltration tactic employed by Shirazis, in an attempt to influence and misguide bache Hezbollahis. Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives have achieved nothing but to feed the enemies of the Islamic Revolution, both domestic and foreign.



And illegitimately issuing takfir against Sunni Moslems, other than being in breach of Islamic rules, will somehow "help" expanding Iranian assistance to the Palestinian Resistance composed of Sunnis. Mass-killings of Sunni Moslems in Iran "probably too". If you cannot see the absurdity of these propositions, then you're lost in cognitive constructs.



We have no right to dismiss Islamic guidelines on takfir. And there are no grounds for takfir against Sunni brothers in Islam, because no marja' subscribes to such a notion.



Regarding a hadith as truthful is one thing, the way in which it is interpreted is another. Literal interpretation is not the only existing type of tafsir'. Most heavyweight traditional Sunni scholars won't operate a literal reading of the hadith.

Anti-Shia takfiris have resorted to the exact same faulty method to twist the meaning of multiple Shia Islamic sources and falsely ascribe grotesque beliefs to Shia Moslems.



There's no self-censorship in the Shia marja'iat on this topic. Individuals like Yaser al-Habib are offering the type of hogwash their foreign sponsors expect them offer, in accordance with their sinister agenda for the Islamic world.



Yet, in your preceding posts you advocate this sort of conduct vis à vis Sunni Moslems in Iran and in neighboring countries:





Which would be no better than the treacherous murder of the Five Shia clerics you're comparing it to. And actually exceeds the latter multiple times in scope. Thus I'm not exactly the one one who's been spinning anything around.

As for Safavid rulers and to repeat, they didn't kill those people because they were Sunni, but because of internal and external conflicts of political nature.



Not really, it's unrelated to my statement though.



Hence why I highlighted that one will find all kinds of episodes in the history of Shia-Sunni relations. Your discourse however conveys the notion that it was exclusively one of conflict and animosity, which is incorrect.



So the Ahlol Beyt (a.s.) took issue not with taquti potentates but with Sunni Moslems as a whole? Their practices consisted in trying to eradicate Sunni Islam through the use of force, torture, warfare, demographic planning? Review your sources.



When you obfuscate the distribution of power and the general geostrategic picture throughout periods of history, you'll inevitably arrive at nonsensical conclusions.

In order to pretend that the overarching contemporary threat to Shia Moslems (and to Sunni Moslems as well, for that matter) does not stem from the zio-American empire but from Sunnis as such, one would be left with no more than two logically conceivable rhetoric subterfuges:

1) Denial of the zio-American hand in propping up takfiri terrorist groups and empowering them to conduct their mischief in the first place. Those believing this would be well advised to have a better look at the plethora of both hard and circumstantial evidence substantiating the fact.

2) Denial of where power and wealth is concentrated in today's world, and what parties will therefore constitute the potentially bigger threats. And the major resources aren't in the hands of a bunch of laughable takfiri goons.

It's noteworthy that Shirazi types share this outlook with pro-western liberals and exiled oppositionists of various political shades - all of them will go out of their way trying to whitewash the leading role of NATO and the zionists in generating the terrorist grouplets which have been causing trouble in our region and beyond.



Adressed this already.




View attachment 884563

https://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01282/

Next time stick with grand ayatAllah Sistani, rather than putting trust in questionable London-based preachers who emulate extremist wahhabis in stirring fitna between Moslems.



And in the Shia world it made its appearance under the Safavids.



Nobody except for the presenter who invited pilgrims to do so on one of the Shirazi clan's numerous satellite broadcasters.



View attachment 884568



And established ulema don't let British-sponsored preachers bend Shia tradition to endanger Islamic unity.



Because when someone does wrong including in their language, it doesn't entitle us to follow suit. The use of profanity, especially in this kind of framework, isn't conforming to Islamic akhlaq.



I don't remember speaking of moftkhori, nor accusing the Islamic Republic thereof.



Well, it seems you need to start learning Persian a.s.a.p. Because the question of hejab in pre-Islamic times has been discussed quite often on Iranian national television and other media.



Islamic Iran will never stoop to "I"SIS' level because Islamic Iran is no NATO / zionist proxy.
We should exchange emails. I'm not done with this and I don't want to spam the thread anymore either.

That is if you agree, of course.
 

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


Top Bottom