What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,085
3
15,737
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
جشن حضرت زهرا(ص)/عمر(لعنت الله) کشان مبارک

View attachment 884901
this will make some people here so angry , I used to troll some people from KSA with it whenever they talked nonsense specially when they recite how he managed to stab 7 of the commanders that accompanied the kalif and escape to Iran while only was armed with a dagger . that version of the story really make them angry specially when i'd have said the feat was impossible without God's blessing and help of Archangels

When I was a kid I had exactly the same mentality but when I grew up I became a patriot and my mentality changed by 180 degree

Most of my friends that we are in connections are the same

We are completely vaccinated against zionist/ western propeganda
these are the kids who raised by their fathers and mothers who are from 50s and 60s and they are raising the next generation , so i don't bet on that
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
these are the kids who raised by their fathers and mothers who are from 50s and 60s and they are raising the next generation , so i don't bet on that
Their reality check will come soon. And truth be told, the gabars aren't the ones breeding - the Shia populace is, particularly the rural one.

Private sector in Iran will evolve too over time. Soon, it will just be companies headed by former Sepahis who still have ties to the organization. The order of the day will be to conform or be smothered alive (just like that spy in the thread with the Reuters article on Iranians dumb enough to spy for the CIA).
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

🇰🇵: <fires ICBM>
🇰🇷: <fires SAM in response>
(SAM fails due to failure of warhead's detonation)
🇰🇷: <shocked Pikachu face>

 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,085
3
15,737
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

🇰🇵: <fires ICBM>
🇰🇷: <fires SAM in response>
(SAM fails due to failure of warhead's detonation)
🇰🇷: <shocked Pikachu face>

hey I have a monopoly and copyright on any use or abuse of Pikachu here on PDF
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
17,085
3
15,737
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
You know, I associate Iranian OSINT with your Pikachu gif. It was a familiar, comforting sight back in my teenage days (although your pessimism used to make me just as angry even then 😹).
a question is my avatar still animated on your side , here i seems to have problem with it and its a still image

by the way here everybody say I'm too optimistic and only see the half full part of the glass , from where that pessimistic come from
 
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
a question is my avatar still animated on your side , here i seems to have problem with it and its a still image

by the way here everybody say I'm too optimistic and only see the half full part of the glass , from where that pessimistic come from
Yeah, I can see the clone Pikachu slapping Ash's poor Pikachu.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you see the empty part and that gets under my skin, kek 😆
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
3,271
2
6,060
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Belgium
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].

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

1.png


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

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}.

Read again what you quoted.

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}).

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, knowing that said differences are overshadowed by commonalities.

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).

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 their statements on Syria 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, namely their proximity to the Muslim Brotherhood and the hazardous outlook of the MB's Syrian branch.

Also, since you seem to be adamant about observance of religious precepts, care to remind us about the shari' sanction for calling someone a prostitute without proof? Namely, how many lashes does it consist of?

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

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

Or should we rather say, 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 happened to be 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 the heroic martyr hajj Qasem Soleimani, who is on the record for declaring that if a Shia Islamic movement was to make its appearance in Occupied Palestine, he would not be supporting it. That as far as Palestine's concerned, he is only going to work with organizations staffed by Sunni Moslems.

So, all these references you mentioned are worlds apart from the discourse you've been expressing 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.

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.

You misunderstood me. I was denouncing an infiltration tactic employed by Shirazis, in an attempt to influence and misguide bache Hezbollahis. To no avail though, since they've systematically failed at it. Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives have achieved nothing but to feed the enemies of the Islamic Revolution, both domestic and foreign.

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).

And illegitimate 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 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.

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.

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.

To regard 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 will not operate a literal reading of the hadith.

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

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.

When it comes to this topic, there's no self-censorship on the part of the Shia marja'iat. Individuals like Yaser al-Habib offer the type of hogwash their foreign sponsors expect them offer in accordance with the empire's sinister agenda for the Islamic world.

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.

Yet, in your preceding posts you were advocating the following conduct vis à vis Sunni Moslems of Iran and neighboring countries:

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.
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).
Zersetzung should be used by isolating leaders and tormenting them until they go insane or commit suicide.

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

As for Safavid rulers I must repeat, they did not fight those people because they were Sunni, but because of internal and external conflicts of political nature.

Oh, you want to ignore "al-azhar's" origin?

Not really. It's unrelated to my statement though.

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)."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Pretending 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, will leave one with no more than two conceivable rhetoric subterfuges:

1) Denial of the zio-American hand in propping up takfiri terrorist groups and in empowering them to conduct their mischief in the first place. Those who indulge in such denial 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 major resources aren't in the hands of a bunch of pathetic takfiri goons, they're elsewhere.

It's noteworthy that Shirazi types share the discussed 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 Iran's vicinity and beyond.

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.

Adressed this already.

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.

2.png


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

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

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}.

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

Nobody is asking to be trampled by horses

Except for the presenter who invited pilgrims to do so on one of the Shirazi clan's numerous satellite broadcasts.

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.

3.png


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.

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

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?

Because when someone does wrong including in the words they use, it doesn't entitle us to follow suit. Profanity, especially in this kind of framework, isn't conforming to Islamic akhlaq.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Islamic Iran will never stoop to "I"SIS' level because Islamic Iran is no NATO / zionist proxy.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2022
801
-2
526
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
India
In English, la'nat kardan is translated as 'to curse'.

View attachment 884544

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



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, knowing that said differences 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 their statements on Syria 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, namely their proximity to the Muslim Brotherhood and the hazardous outlook of the MB's Syrian branch.

Also, since you seem to be adamant about observance of religious precepts, care to remind us about the shari' sanction 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 should we rather say, 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 happened to be 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 the heroic martyr hajj Qasem Soleimani, who is on the record for declaring that if a Shia Islamic movement was to make its appearance in Occupied Palestine, he would not be supporting it. That as far as Palestine's concerned, he is only going to work with organizations staffed by Sunni Moslems.

So, all these references you mentioned are worlds apart from the discourse you've been expressing 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. To no avail though, since they've systematically failed at it. Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives have achieved nothing but to feed the enemies of the Islamic Revolution, both domestic and foreign.



And illegitimate 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.



To regard 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 will not operate a literal reading of the hadith.

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



When it comes to this topic, there's no self-censorship on the part of the Shia marja'iat. Individuals like Yaser al-Habib offer the type of hogwash their foreign sponsors expect them offer in accordance with the empire's sinister agenda for the Islamic world.



Yet, in your preceding posts you were advocating the following conduct vis à vis Sunni Moslems of Iran and neighboring countries:





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

As for Safavid rulers I must repeat, they did not fight 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 across periods of time, you'll inevitably arrive at nonsensical conclusions.

Pretending 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, will leave one with no more than two conceivable rhetoric subterfuges:

1) Denial of the zio-American hand in propping up takfiri terrorist groups and in empowering them to conduct their mischief in the first place. Those who indulge in such denial 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 major resources aren't in the hands of a bunch of pathetic takfiri goons, they're elsewhere.

It's noteworthy that Shirazi types share the discussed 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 Iran's vicinity and beyond.



Adressed this already.




View attachment 884563

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

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



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



Except for the presenter who invited pilgrims to do so on one of the Shirazi clan's numerous satellite broadcasts.



View attachment 884568



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



Because when someone does wrong including in the words they use, it doesn't entitle us to follow suit. 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.
May I ask you why you sent this entire retarded monologue to me twice?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom