May I ask you why you sent this entire retarded monologue to me twice?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.
Imam Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys many characteristics that differentiate him from other world leaders.www.sharghdaily.com
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
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.