"If the Saudis do anything ignorant, we will leave no area untouched except Mecca and Medina"

[Mamluk]

I honestly think that people of the Middle East have more in common overall and have less diversity than what can be found in South Asia.

Exactly. South Asia is both linguistically and racially more diverse than the ME. It spans three primary language families (Indo-Euro, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman) and numerous ethnicities, some of whom can look West Asian, others like Australoidic (most Indians) and some like Burmese/South-East Asians.

That's why I say, the Arab world has a better chance of uniting under a single political identity than South Asians. The only reason Indian union exists is because of the British. But it's no more a 'real nation' than a hypothetical united African continent.

 

[Śakra]

We will take revenge of Ahlulbayt. It's predicted in Hadiths

Speaking of ahlubayt I just watched this documentary and found it pretty interesting. It's not 100% factual but it does show a side of Indian history most don't know

 

[Mamluk]

@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::>

In Zoroastrian Middle Persian (Pahlavi) texts, the term xwēdōdah (Av.xᵛaētuuadaθa, khevtuk-das) is said to refer to marital unions of father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister (next-of-kin or close-kin marriage, nuclear family incest), and to be one of the most pious actions possible. The models for these unions were found in the Zoroastrian cosmogony. Men were allowed to marry their daughters, sisters, and mother. It was “not merely tolerated, but indeed regarded as acts of piety and great merit, and even efficacious against the demonic forces.” The religious leaders of the time promoted marriage within the family, claiming it imitated the creation. Moreover, priests claimed that incestuous marriage “produced stronger males, more virtuous females, and higher quality and quantity of children, and it protected the purity of the race and propagated it.” This was met by much resistance, led to more conversions from Zoroastrians to Christianity, and is thought to have led to the downfall of the Zoroastrian religion. Finally, The number of wives a man had, was reliant on the means of the man. Thus, there wasn’t as much polygamy in the lower classes as in the wealthy class because men could not afford it.



Please note how Polygamy, concubines, slavery and the Islamic (and also Jewish and Christian-Bible based) principle of how a wife should be obedient to her husband were all part of the Zoroastrian Pre-Islamic society of Persia, yet many modern day Neo-Zorastrian Iranians can often be seen attacking Islam for these very Zoroastrian traditions. The irony …

Notes:

There are two extreme when it comes to the pre-Islamic history of Iran. On on side you have the so called Islamists who paint a picture of pre-Islamic Iran as if it was worth nothing, a dark age with no achievements whatsoever. Then you have the other extreme, represented by Iranian nationalists or in more extreme cases blatant apostates (nine times out of then a former Twelver Shia), Anti-Arab and Anti-Islam bigots who see all evil in Islam and in Arab culture and all good in the Pre-Islamic era of Iran, including the Zoroastrian religion. There is no doubt that Persians were a great people before Islam, however the blessings that Islam brought to Persia are undeniable, at least to the eyes of an open minded, non-biased (and non racist) researcher. The following article does not want in any shape or form suggest that all Persians in Pre-Islamic Persia used to wed their mothers and sisters, this is absurd (and part of Zoroastrianism), same as it is certainly not true that all Arabs used to bury their daughters alive. However, both aforementioned despicable practices were still common to a certain extent and it was Islam that abolished both, the superstition and wickedness of Zoroastrianism and pre-Islamic Persian culture of wedding ones mother and sister and the superstitious and wicked pre-Islamic Arab culture of burying ones daughter alive.

Avesta literature is Zoroastrian literature, it’s the Bible of the Zoroastrians, full of filth, paganism, polytheism, degradation of women and perverted rulings (such as marrying ones mother and sister!). Of course these scandals have never been really analysed and exposed to English speakers, for the Iranian Anti-Islam lobby around the world has been busy trying to find all sorts of faults in Islam, portraying it as the incarnation of evil supposedly Zoroastrianism and Pre-Islamic Persia were a heaven on earth that was destroyed by savage Arabs of the desert of Arabia. Nothing can be further from the truth than that, since it was Islam that has taught the Persians to stop marrying and penetrating their mothers and sister. If it wasn’t for our master Ali Ibn Abi Talib and the Caliph of his time, our master Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (the later was encouraged by the former to fight the Persian Sassanian Empire and spread Islam to Persia) then we Persians wouldn’t have known the difference between our mothers and sisters.

https://sonsofsunnah.com/2015/02/10/marrige-between-mother-son/

Islam certainly did have a civilizing effect on much of Asia, including Iran. Instead of longing to return to pre-Islam (and the hideous practices associated with it), they should work towards what I would call 'post-Islam' - i.e. stick to Islamic family values and other principles that sustain civilization but also reform certain things/adapt as needed in modern times (also so that there is less friction with the non-Muslim world).

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Exactly. South Asia is both linguistically and racially more diverse than the ME. It spans three primary language families (Indo-Euro, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman) and numerous ethnicities, some of whom can look West Asian, others like Australoidic (most Indians) and some like Burmese/South-East Asians.

That's why I say, the Arab world has a better chance of uniting under a single political identity than South Asians. The only reason Indian union exists is because of the British. But it's no more a 'real nation' than a hypothetical united African continent.

Anyway, shall I tell you what Iran's greatest connection to South Asia is? The Mughals and a few other dynasties (all non-Iranian) used Persian as a court language and had a few Iranian administrators/advisers etc. for a time. Similar to how there were Arab and Turkic influences and dynasties. That and parts of South Asia (mostly only half of what is today Pakistan) being ruled as satrapies for a few centuries. However to talk about South Asia as a unified entity makes less sense than talking about the Middle East as a unified entity. Much less. South Asia is much more diverse as you rightly pointed out.

Moreover to think that history began 2500 years ago is also an interesting theory. Neither the locals of Pakistan nor the minority of Indo-European speaking nomadic tribes who invaded South Asia from Central Asia (and brought their languages with them) were from Iran or had anything to do with Iran. In fact Central Asians (Turkic speakers there too), Afghans and people of Northern Pakistan have much more in common with those people than Iranians have who are mostly by large "natives" to the Iranian plateau who were simply Persified by a small elite.

Also obviously most of the Pakistani identity derives from Islam and secondly from native practices.

Don't allow foreigners to write nonsense about your ancestors or their history. The people that you are discussing with have a tendency (delusions) of thinking that they are the center of the world when they have neither the oldest history in the region (far from it) nor the most influential one or the most influential legacy.

Anyway much of pre-Islamic Iranian culture if not most of it, derives from our pre-Islamic Semitic cultures. Be it art, architecture, religious influences, linguistic, symbols or even titles (King of Kings as I mentioned) and quite a lot more. Their entire bureaucracy were also copied from the previous Assyrian and Akkadian empires. The Semitic Aramaic was also the lingua franca under Cyrus. Of course this is "forgotten" when you discuss such topics with deluded Persian nationalists. Similar to the past 1400 years of Islamic history.

Also as I pointed out earlier this thread is made under a false pretext.

Q: Can we see a direct dialogue with Iran in the future despite what it is doing in the region?

How do you communicate with someone or a regime that’s completely convinced that its system is based on an extremist ideology that relies on texts in its constitution and in Khomeini’s legacy and that stipulates that it must control Muslims in the Islamic world and spread the Twelver Jaafari sect in the Islamic world so Imam Mahdi comes. How do I convince these of anything? What interests are there between me and them? How do I communicate with them? When there’s a problem between me and another state, we begin by solving it. For example, if there’s an economic problem, we communicate and I see what you want and you see what I want and we understand how to address the problem. If, for example, it is a political problem, like the case is with Russia and how we communicate regarding Syria, we discuss what their interests are and what my interests are. How do we communicate on Yemen? We discuss interests. But with Iran, how do we communicate? Their logic is based on the notion that Imam Mahdi will come and that they must prepare the fertile environment for his arrival and they must control the Muslim world. They deprived their own people of development for more than 30 years and put them through starvation. The people have bad infrastructure because the regime only wants to achieve this aim related to Imam Mahdi. The regime will not change its mindset overnight; otherwise, its legitimacy inside Iran will come to an end. The mutual points, which we can agree on with this regime, are almost non-existent. This regime was tested during more than one phase, like during the time of Rafsanjani and everything turned out to be mere charades. The strategy of expansion was adopted after the Khomeini revolution happened. When the world got angry, they brought a peaceful leader and at the time it was Rafsanjani. They did that to gain the trust of the world and our trust. They gained our trust. After that they got to another phase of providing a good environment, an extremist leader was assigned so the expansion resumes. This is what we saw during the reign of Ahmedinejad and we saw how they expanded in Iraq, Syria and other areas. Then they’d assign another leader to maintain the gains and satisfy the rest of the world. Then they’d again assign an extremist leader to resume expansion. This will not happen. This is over. A believer is not bitten from the same hole twice. We were bitten once. We will not be bitten again. We know we are a major target for the Iranian regime. Reaching the Muslims’ qibla is a major aim for the Iranian regime. We will not wait until the battle is in Saudi Arabia but we will work so the battle is there in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/fea...cript-of-Mohammed-Bin-Salman-s-interview.html
​

This statement is nothing compared to what the Iranian Mullah's have been spreading of manure for years against KSA and many Arab states let alone general threats of controlling this, destroying this and that.

Take a look at this below or just make a quick Google search.

Iran threatens to turn Saudi Arabia into hell

October 20, 2014 by yalibnan 366 Comments

Iranian leaders threatened “to turn Saudi Arabia into hell,” over the last few days in response to a decision by a Saudi court to sentence the Shi’ite cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr to death. A day later Iran carried out a wave of arrests against Sunni clerics.

The tit-for-tat exchange comes as the West scrutinizes Tehran’s involvement in the Syrian and Iraqi arenas.

Al-Nimr was found guilty a week ago of seeking “foreign meddling” in Saudi Arabia, disobeying its rulers and taking up arms against the Saudi security forces. Al-Nimr was a vocal supporter of the mass anti-government protests that erupted in eastern Saudi Arabia three years ago.

Commander of Iran’s Basij force Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza Naqdi (pictured) threatened revenge if the Saudis execute the cleric, “If the Al-Saud commits such a crime against AyatollahSheikh al-Nimr, its move will not remain unanswered and Muslims will change this world to a hell for them.”

Moreover, according to some Arabic reports, a wide campaign of arrests against Sunni clerics in Iran was launched by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

The recent developments in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are in sharp contrast to reports from various media outlets about a recent rapprochement between the two countries, based on the desire for a common struggle against the Sunni extremist organization ISIS. In fact, on Friday, an Iran official accused Riyadh of creating ISIS. The Iranian IRNA news agency reported

Tehran Substitute Friday Prayers Leader Seyyed Ahmad Khatami criticized Saudi officials for supporting extremist groups in the region… He blamed Riyadh for advocating the terrorist group of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its failed attempts to topple legal governments of Syria and Iraq.

The Tower

http://yalibnan.com/2014/10/20/iran-threatens-turn-saudi-arabia-hell/

We saw how those threats ended. It ended by attacking the Saudi Arabian embassy and consulate and afterwards for KSA breaking all diplomatic ties with Iran. Ever since they have been crying and recently their small foreign minister (Zarif) admitted to it being a big mistake (attacking the embassy). It's a joke.

 

[Arsalan 345]

Anyway, shall I tell you what Iran's greatest connection to South Asia is? The Mughals and a few other dynasties (all non-Iranian) used Persian as a court language and had a few Iranian administrators/advisers etc. for a time. Similar to how there were Arab and Turkic influences and dynasties. That and parts of South Asia (mostly only half of what is today Pakistan) being ruled as satrapies for a few centuries. However to talk about South Asia as a unified entity makes less sense than talking about the Middle East as a unified entity. Much less. South Asia is much more diverse as you rightly pointed out.

Moreover to think that history began 2500 years ago is also an interesting theory. Neither the locals of Pakistan



nor the minority of Indo-European speaking nomadic tribes who invaded South Asia from Central Asia (and brought their languages with them) were from Iran or had anything to do with Iran. In fact Central Asians (Turkic speakers there too), Afghans and people of Northern Pakistan have much more in common with those people than Iranians have who are mostly by large "natives" to the Iranian plateau who were simply Persified by a small elite.

Also obviously most of the Pakistani identity derives from Islam and secondly from native practices.

Don't allow foreigners to write nonsense about your ancestors or their history. The people that you are discussing with have a tendency (delusions) of thinking that they are the center of the world when they have neither the oldest history in the region (far from it) nor the most influential one or the most influential legacy.

Anyway much of pre-Islamic Iranian culture if not most of it, derives from our pre-Islamic Semitic cultures. Be it art, architecture, religious influences, linguistic, symbols or even titles (King of Kings as I mentioned) and quite a lot more. Their entire bureaucracy were also copied from the previous Assyrian and Akkadian empires. The Semitic Aramaic was also the lingua franca under Cyrus. Of course this is "forgotten" when you discuss such topics with deluded Persian nationalists. Similar to the past 1400 years of Islamic history.

saudia arabia and iran,both was part of sunni arab muslims and not shia or wahhabi or athel e hadess or anything like that.you can invent as much sects as you want but it has nothing to do with arabs or islam.don't call yourself arab.these same sheikhs helped britain to recapture saudia from ottoman.remember sunni arab muslims ottoman empire have many wars with sheikhs in the past.if you think that saudia belongs to you people,you are wrong.it will always belong to sunni muslims.and iran too,look at history first.go and fight with each other.

 

[Finer]

After reading this thread, it is no wonder why Middle East is messed up. What do you expect when you have KSA and Iran using ME as battleground to settle their personal scores whether it is sectarian or racial? They are doomed.

And it is no wonder why both are prophesied to be found in ruins as mentioned greatly in Authentic hadiths. Both KSA and Iran are gone.

Time for Pakistan to focus on elsewhere where there is hope [Kashmir].

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Exactly. South Asia is both linguistically and racially more diverse than the ME. It spans three primary language families (Indo-Euro, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman) and numerous ethnicities, some of whom can look West Asian, others like Australoidic (most Indians) and some like Burmese/South-East Asians.

That's why I say, the Arab world has a better chance of uniting under a single political identity than South Asians. The only reason Indian union exists is because of the British. But it's no more a 'real nation' than a hypothetical united African continent.

But this is an external point of view. Diversity, varieties and distinctions among the Arabic-speaking population is perceived differently. That's why I doubt that any unification will ever happen.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

saudia arabia and iran,both was part of sunni arab muslims and not shia or wahhabi or athel e hadess or anything like that.you can invent as much sects as you want but it has nothing to do with arabs or islam.don't call yourself arab.these same sheikhs helped britain to recapture saudia from ottoman.remember sunni arab muslims ottoman empire have many wars with sheikhs in the past.if you think that saudia belongs to you people,you are wrong.it will always belong to sunni muslims.and iran too,look at history first.go and fight with each other.

There is nothing called "Wahhabism". No person in KSA or elsewhere in the world calls himself a "Wahhabi". This is a slur that was invented/used by outsiders, mainly Westerners. What you are referring to here are Hanbalis who are 1 of the 4 recognized Sunni madahib. In KSA most people are not Hanbalis but rather Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanafis, Sufism and if Shia (Twelver, Ismaili and Zaydi). In fact what is modern-day KSA is home to all Muslim sects indigenously.

"Recaputure". Saudi Arabia was never a Western colony let alone a British one. At some point in history, centuries ago, the Portuguese used to control a few ports in what is today KSA but otherwise nothing else.

As for the Ottomans, they were falling apart long before they were chased away from the only part of Arabia that they had nominal control of (local rulers ruled on their behalf and sometimes completely independently) was Hijaz and Islamic history did not start in 1517 when the Ottomans took control of the Caliphate after almost 1000 years of Arab rule (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasids, Fatimids etc.). You forget/forgot that Arabs were the biggest group of people in the Ottoman Empire and that far from all Arabs even fought for their independence. You have to understand, once and for all, that the Ottomans were a dying entity and that many other areas (Balkans, Egypt) already broke apart/revolved long before Hijaz did. Not only that, Hijaz was for a long time (unfortunately) neglected by the Ottomans. Not only that the Caliphate was only symbolic back then. Turkish nationalists were in power and the "Islamic Caliphate" was at that time allied with Westerners (Germans) etc. You are looking at this from a very one-sided/biased/non-informative angle.

Lastly I am a Shafi' Sunni Muslim (I prefer to just call myself a Muslim) but what you said is completely wrong. Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Saudi Arabians. That Makkah and Madinah are the most holy cities for Muslims does not mean that those cities do not predate Islam (they are both one of the oldest cities in the Middle East) and that us natives have nothing to do with the land that we live on.

Also Saudi Arabia does not belong to any specific Muslim sect but all Muslim sects that are native to KSA. It belongs to Saudi Arabians first and foremost and afterwards Muslims.

But this is an external point of view. Diversity, varieties and distinctions among the Arabic-speaking population is perceived differently. That's why I doubt that any unification will ever happen.

The Arab world was united for most of Islamic history, as in being part of the same dynasties (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid etc.). Also "what type of unification" are we talking about here? I assume political as there is already a deep cultural, linguistic, historical, genetic, religious etc. unification/connection. As far as political goes, the Arab world is already the most united Muslim region in the Muslim world in terms of political organizations (Arab League, regional Arab political blocs such as the GCC, Arab Maghreb Union) etc. I think that it is inevitable for the Arab world to pursue greater internal ties on all fronts as what is the existing status is not reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the people but even despite this much has been achieved compared to other regions of the Muslim and non-Muslim world. For the Arab League to develop into a EU is also quite possible in the future. That would be enough as the Arab world, whether one single future federal state or status quo, will always have a tied future and similar challenges which require cooperation. There is no need for any single federal state which many people think about when this topic is discussed.

 

[British SAS]

... Meh all I see is a couple of degenerated Indians pretending to be Iranian (like the false-flagger 'persianimmortal' we had recently) and everyone here is being duped... Some of the views being disseminated here by so called 'Iranians', i've never come across in 'real life'.. Here in the UK, I've been around a hell of a lot of Iranians and unequivocally they do not even utter a bad word about Arabs or Pakistan or anyone. I can say as a fact, they've been very affable, supportive and personable. Not everything you see is reality, not even Shia's hold some of the views being thrown around here. Shameful creatures are Indians. Pakistanis, Arabs and Iranians.. On this thread, you're being taken for a ride; btw Iranians don't utter words like 'p*ki'.

P.S. A hell of a lot of anti-Islamic statements (few examples being: "we killed Umar" mentioned with sheer pride, another being "worship a black stone" I've never met a single muslim in my entire life that worships the Kaa'ba or the stone) are being thrown around here and no ban has been served. Absolute joke of a thread. Totally disgusting.
Someone tag a few mods so they can hand out much needed bans.

 

[British SAS]

I don't know which Iranians that you have met in the West (UK) but it is widely recognized and known by the Muslim community in the West (regardless of ethnicity), that some of the biggest Uncle Toms are Iranians in this regard. At least the Iranian diaspora that were pro-Shah and arrived after 1979. Some of the most well-known anti-Muslim critics among "Muslim communities" in the West can be found among Iranians. Obviously this criticism of Islam is often tied to a criticism of Arabs which are blamed for most of Iran's miseries. For instance the current Mullah's ruling Iran (who almost all claim Arab ancestry or have Arab ancestry) are called by such people as "Arab aliens" and blamed by such people for all the ills in Iran. We even see this on this very forum.

And there are no false-flagging Iranians in this thread. They are all Iranian users.

I don't know which Iranians that you have met in the West (UK) but it is widely recognized and known by the Muslim community in the West (regardless of ethnicity), that some of the biggest Uncle Toms are Iranians in this regard. At least the Iranian diaspora that were pro-Shah and arrived after 1979. Some of the most well-known anti-Muslim critics among "Muslim communities" in the West can be found among Iranians. Obviously this criticism of Islam is often tied to a criticism of Arabs who are blamed for most of Iran's miseries. For instance the current Mullah's ruling Iran (who almost all claim Arab ancestry or have Arab ancestry) are called by such people as "Arab aliens" and blamed by such people for all the ills in Iran. We even see this on this very forum.

And there are no false-flagging Iranians in this thread. They are all Iranian users.

Mate, we had a one 'Persianimmortal' here recently. An 100lbs Indian false flagger, spouting all sorts of rubbish about Islam and Pakistan but posing as Iranian. I know what Iranians are like, most of the ones i meet here are non-Muslim but nontheless don't mock Islam or refer to Pakistanis as 'pak*s' that's something Indians say online but never in real life.
You're being duped.. Just relax and report any anti-Islamic comments and racism.

 

[Amir Kabir]

Mate, we had a one 'Persianimmortal' here recently. An India false flagger, spouting all sorts of rubbish about Islam and Pakistan but posing as Iranian. I know what Iranians are like, most of the ones i meet here are non-Muslim but nontheless don't mock Islam or refer to Pakistanis as 'pak*s' that's something Indians say online but never in real life.
You're being duped.. Just relax and report any anti-Islamic comments and racism.

Don't bother with the saudi, he's a shill who talks shit nonstop about Iran, he seems to constantly have a stick up his *** about it. Maybe he's butthurt that his Wahhabi friends are getting put down like dogs in Syria

Just ignore, report, and move on.

 

[British SAS]

He was not a false-flagger. I saw that discussion. The same individual who was behind this user has written in this thread today. I will let you guess who that individual is. That individual is/was an Iranian as he wrote in Farsi. I suggest to visit a few Iranian forums as it seems that you need an eyeopener. Also consider what I wrote to you. Anyway I am not here to convince you I am just saying that you should do your own research and you will quickly realize that what I wrote in this regard, is correct.

I know who you're referring to;
Totally an Indian posing as Iranian. I'm on the Arab side but don't hate Iran at all,
I'm telling you Iranians aren't like this in the real world; well most aren't, but there is next to no reason for me to defend Iranians but I am convinced some members here are false-flaggers and are actually Indian.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

I know who you're referring to;
Totally an Indian posing as Iranian. I'm on the Arab side. There is next to no reason for me to defend Iranians but I am convinced some members here are false-flaggers and are actually Indian.

There are indeed quite a few of such people and I suspect too that quite a few of them (naturally) are Indians. However in this case, that was an genuine Iranian. Now returned under a new username and writing in this very thread.

Anyway what I wrote to you, I am sure that you will find out on your very own if you do the research.

I personally do not care and for me I see this behavior as something positive (for various reasons).

Lastly have in mind that the user @SALMAN F is a false-flagging non-Iraqi/Lebanese/Arab, just in case you wonder about the nature of his nonsense posts in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[British SAS]

There are indeed quite a few of such people and I suspect too that quite a few of them (naturally) are Indians. However in this case, that was an genuine Iranian. Now returned under a new username and writing in this very thread.

Anyway what I wrote to you, I am sure that you will find out on your very own if you do the research.

Anyway I personally do not care and for me I see this behavior as something positive (for various reasons).

Iranians don't say things like "pak*" and "you worship a black stone" Iranians know the Holy Prophet Muhammad kissed the stone as it was from paradise and out of respect we kiss it too. Only a non-Muslim that has no knowledge of Islam would say that, it's something Caucasians say here in the UK, till we explain the kaa'ba is a direction. Every Muslim knows this. Clearly an Indian. Report such filth and be happy when the vermin is ostracised.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Iranians don't say things like "pak*" and "you worship a black stone" Iranians know the Holy Prophet Muhammad kissed the stone as it was from paradise and out of respect we kiss it too. Only a non-Muslim that has no knowledge of Islam would say that, it's something Caucasians say here in the UK, till we explain the kaa'ba is a direction. Every Muslim knows this. Clearly an Indian. Report such filth and be happy when the vermin is ostracised.

Most Iranians do not as most of the are Muslim. Correct. However there is a large, or at least a very local, minority of Iranians (home and abroad) who are vehemently anti-Islam. Such rhetoric is normal for them.

Also I can assure you that the individual that you are talking about was an Iranian and not an Indian. He is an "old" friend of mine on this forum. I can spot double users (on any forum) from a mile away as it is not that hard.

Anyway enough of time has been wasted on this irrelevant discussion/nonsense. What needed to be written about this hilarious thread and topic was written by me and many other users. Arab as non-Arab, so I will leave it at that and let Mullah fantasies be Mullah fantasies.