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

[Azadkashmir]

mods are not cleaning thread, come on wakeup we just had investment for cpec from china. i am sure thier is enough wages paid, overtime too.

 

[Pandora]

To all the idiot preaching role of Pakistan in Iran Saudi conflict should just slap themselves. Our position is very clear as mentioned a thousand times by our military that we will defend holly sites nothing else. Saudis and Iranians fighting it out in their own backyards rather than some one elses will be a dream come true. We all know that both of them will never fight directly which shouldn't shock anyone. Considering the mess they created from yemen to syria to iraq no one will mourn either of them.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

>ancient Semitic culture

Semites have zero culture to begin with, how could we manage to steal something that doesn't exist?

>he was an invented person

Wew lad, seems all those lizards you ate must be clogging your pea-sized brain. There are far more historical sources to prove Zoroaster existed than there are sources to prove that pedo "prophet" of yours ever existed outside of your sun-burnt Ar*b "mind".

>This is also why Tajiks (where most of the so-called "Iranian" Islamic scientists were from) are not closely related to Iranians genetically

Yes, because they obviously mixed with Turkics, dumbass.

Speaking of genetics, the average modern Saudi "Arab" has like 30% negroid admixture, so if anything, you creatures can't even claim Islamic civilization for yourself

Furthermore, Tajiks are as genetically far away from us as Iraqis or Lebanese or Morrocans are from Saudis, if you creatures can claim all their achievements as "Arab" "history" then we can claim Tajiks as our own too.

Speaking of which, can anyone here remind me, how many Muslim or Arab scientists or philosophers came from the Arabian Peninsula?

Now go back to drinking camel piss and raping 3 year olds, my "Arab" friend.

Semites don't have culture? I am not even going to bother at this point.

This is hands down one of the stupidest statements in history. This will go down in the history books as one of the most retarded sayings in the world and its entire history.

Also Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) was not a pedo
'
Aisha was thought to be 10 at the time of her betrothal and 15 at the time of her marraige. (Living Thoughts Of The Prophet Muhammad -pbuh, chapter 1)

However, later research showed that she was actually 15 at the time of her betrothal and 19 at the time of her marraige.

Research subsequent to the time of Maulana Muhammad Ali has shown that she was older than this. An excellent short work presenting such evidence is the Urdu pamphlet Rukhsati kai waqt Sayyida Aisha Siddiqa ki umar (‘The age of Lady Aisha at the time of the start of her married life’) by Abu Tahir Irfani. Points 1 to 3 below have been brought to light in this pamphlet.

The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.”

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa,wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years"

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha."



And there is plenty of evidence of his existence.

 

[British SAS]

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.

Amigo, i like your strategy, move on. Report. Be the bigger person. There's only one winner when Arabs vs Iranians bicker, those are sat behind their screens in non-Muslim countries and run with fevour to show their friends, and mock "guys take a look at at these guys hating on each other, we duped em lol". Take care.

Semites don't have culture? I am not even going to bother at this point.

This is hands down one of the stupidest statements in history. This will go down in the history books as one of the most retarded sayings in the world and its entire history.

Also Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) was not a pedo and there is plenty of evidence of his existence.

All accusations directed towards the Holy Prophet have been debunked over and over. The irony is nobody accused the Prophet of such things till recently in the past 100 years; there's a reason for that. Keep your cool, report him like I just did. Arabs are a great people, with a long list of successes, inventions- not to mention the greatest figure to have ever graced the earth was also an Arab. That too from Saudi Arabia.

P.s. I'm no Arab nor Iranian.

 

[ultron]

Is the Kaaba rebuilt since it was initially built? What is it made of?

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Amigo, i like your strategy, move on. Report. Be the bigger person. There's only one winner when Arabs vs Iranians bicker, those are sat behind their screens in non-Muslim countries and run with fevour to show their friends, and mock "guys take a look at at these guys hating on each other, we duped em lol". Take care.

Arabs and Iranians (regardless of ethnicity) do not show the hostility that you see online (occasionally) in person. In fact Arabs and genuine Persians from Southern Iran have long had overall cordial relations in the GCC. There is a historical rivalry and now the sectarian element but it is quite frankly blown out of proportion by large. If the opposite was the case there would not be millions of Iranian Arabs or the largest Iranian diaspora in the world outside of the US in the GCC. Or a long history of intermarriages between Arabs (on both sides of the Gulf) and Iranian (Persians, Iranian Arabs, Lurs, Iranian Baloch).

It's just that most of us Arabs really dislike their regime and its policy (the pro-Mullah Iranians probably think similarly about some of our regimes) and current events in the region don't help that. But don't think that Arabs and Iranians, whenever they met, are at odds automatically or necessarily hostile. That's not the case.

Arabs and Iranians, especially from Southern Iran, share quite a lot in common objectively speaking.

We should distinguish between regimes and regime supporters and their views and people. I openly dislike their Mulalh regime and its policies and I have little tolerance for their supporters but that does not mean that I have a problem with ordinary Iranians from say Bushehr across the Gulf or Birjand in Southern Khorasan. This might sound condescending but due to historical reasons in the past 1400 years (I have already talked about this in detail in this thread) it is more or less a one-sided obsession. Arabs don't have much of a reason for having such a obsession (unlike the other way around) other than more recent events.

Let me make this clear so you will understand what I am talking about. Pre-1979 nobody looked at Iran as an enemy or even a state/people that we were occupied with. Pre-1979, the Iranians who dislike Arabs/Islam etc. had the exact same grudge that they have today. So from the viewpoint of Arabs this current conflict is more political. Other than historical rivalry but that is what it is and something that mostly historians are preoccupied with. It has little impact on day-to-day events.

So if I had a harsh tone in this thread, it was aimed specifically at the Iranian users who participated in this thread, many of whom, having a problem with Arabs just for being Arabs. Also PDF is PDF. I am sure that most people know about this, at least users here.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

what Saudis are saying now Iranians have already been doing. so why cry now.

 

[British SAS]

Arabs and Iranians (regardless of ethnicity) do not show the hostility that you see online (occasionally) in person. In fact Arabs and genuine Persians from Southern Iran have long had overall cordial relations in the GCC. There is a historical rivalry and now the sectarian element but it is quite frankly blown out of proportion by large. If the opposite was the case there would not be millions of Iranian Arabs or the largest Iranian diaspora in the world outside of the US in the GCC. Or a long history of intermarriages between Arabs (on both sides of the Gulf) and Iranian (Persians, Iranian Arabs, Lurs, Iranian Baloch).

It's just that most of us Arabs really dislike their regime and its policy (the pro-Mullah Iranians probably think similarly about some of our regimes) and current events in the region don't help that. But don't think that Arabs and Iranians, whenever they met, are at odds automatically or necessarily hostile. That's not the case.

Arabs and Iranians, especially from Southern Iran, share quite a lot in common.

We should distinguish between regimes and regime supporters and their views and people. I openly dislike their Mulalh regime and its policies and I have little tolerance for their supporters but that does not mean that I have a problem with ordinary Iranians from say Bushehr across the Gulf or Birjand in Southern Khorasan. This might sound condescending but due to historical reasons in the past 1400 years (I have already talked about this in detail in this thread) it is more or less a one-sided obsession. Arabs don't have much of a reason for having such a obsession (unlike the other way around) other than more recent events.

Let me make this clear so you will understand what I am talking about. Pre-1979 nobody looked at Iran as an enemy or even a state/people that we were occupied with. Pre-1979, the Iranians who dislike Arabs/Islam etc. had the exact same grudge that they have today. So from the viewpoint of Arabs this current conflict is more political. Other than historical rivalry but that is what it is and something that mostly historians are preoccupied with. It has little impact on day-to-day events.

Mate, on my university course, Arabs and Iranians got along just fine. No Iranian ever uttered a bad word, nor did any Arab, I found both to be very polite, lovely people. The online realm is full of deception. Shia vs Sunni doesn't really exist it's just politics mostly as you mentioned. Just remember, third parties have alwahs successfully exploited Muslims, created divisions; hence the lack of Muslim cohesion and unity. If I'm not mistaken there's almost 1m Iranians spread across Arab countries.

 

[Awan68]

Pakistan is only 70 years old, was most of the time in its history either part of greater Iran or greater India (aryavarta). Today almost 100 percent of Pakistan are either Iranian nations (pashtuns and baluch) or Indic/Indian nations.

The recent invention of pakistan puts it in a identity problem, because if they claim old history they have to respect history of India and Iran. If they go for muslim history, that's only 1400 years old and the caliphates in Pakistan didnt last longer than 200 years (umayads and abbasids). Other problem is that you're no arabs. So this young/new country, with its Iranian name and almost Iranian National anthem, combined with its Iranian and Indic peoples and official Indic language, has a identity problem below the surface.


They're still mostly ethnic Indians, but muslim Indians. They can deny it, but they are what they hate. That's what happens when foreigners create new fake identities in our regions.


We killed umar and kicked them out of our lands.


Pakistan didnt exist, it was either India or Iran. It's indeed funny if some pakistani claims that Iran or India was occupied by this and that because they themselves were also part of either Iran or India.

We are sunni muslims and that identity is enough for us, the 70 yr old history of pakistan is also enough for us, f uck u n ur fire worshiping idiotic nation, how dare u disrespect the caliph u bllody dog, u are all dogs of hell u bloddy iranians, filtny degenarates......

 

[saaju]

Really sad to see two muslims states are fighting each other ... just imagine If iran , KSA and Pakistan could get togather How strong can we become ..

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

There's nothing called "Indic" nations. Dravidians stole this term from the Sindh region. They are not us. Aryavarta belonged to our ancestors.

Pakistan acronym is new, the people it represents (Punjabi, Aghans, Kashmiris etc.) are not.

We claim all history on our land, Islamic or not.

We can use whatever language we want as Lingua franca on our land, can even switch to Spanish if we want - none of your business.

There is nothing called Indians. The proper name is Sindh. Those who stole this name are Dravidians.

So when Arabs or Mongols were whooping your as$es, where was Iran? You talk like Iran is a continuously existing political entity.

Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.

No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):

Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.

People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:

Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.

I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...


Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there


Anyways about where "Iran" was during the history:

Ardashir I, who was the first king of the Sasanian Empire, had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān (shahanshahe Iran) in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” His son Shapur I referred to himself as šāhānšāh ērān and anērān (lit. "king of kings of the Aryans and the Non-Aryans") in Middle Persian and šāhānšāh aryān and anaryān in Parthian. Later kings used the same or similar phrases and these titles became the standard designations of the Sasanian sovereigns.

However the major trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek) inscription of Shapur I at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht in Fars, introduces another term ērānšahr (Iranshahr) in Middle Persian and aryānšahr in Parthian. Shapur's declaration reads an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm.. (lit. “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”). This follows his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” and thus makes it "very likely" that ērānšahr "properly denoted the empire".

According to the book and as an ancient Iranian tradition, Ērānšahr is divided into four "mythologically and mentally" defined regions or sides called kusts. These parts/regions/sides of the state during and after Khosrow I, on the pattern of the four cardinal points, are (1) Xwarāsān “northeast”; (2) Xwarwarān “southwest”; (3) Nēmrōz “southeast”; and (4) Ādurbādagān “northwest”.[1]

by the early Islamic period the "general designation for the land of the Iranians was [...] by then ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.

During the Safavid era (1501–1736), most of the territory of the Sassanid empire regained its political unity, and Safavid kings were assuming the title of "Šāhanšāh-e Irān" (Iran's king of kings).

Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians”

We are sunni muslims and that identity is enough for us, the 70 yr old history of pakistan is also enough for us, f uck u n ur fire worshiping idiotic nation, how dare u disrespect the caliph u bllody dog, u are all dogs of hell u bloddy iranians, filtny degenarates......

I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?
Firuz nahavandi defended Iran and killed umar. Is that disrespect to read the history? no, it's even written in hadiths. If you consider this disrespect you should burn all hadith books which you follow and which were written by Iranians.

 

[adil_minhas]

Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.

No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):

Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.

People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:

Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.

I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...


Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there


Anyways about where "Iran" was during the history:

Ardashir I, who was the first king of the Sasanian Empire, had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān (shahanshahe Iran) in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” His son Shapur I referred to himself as šāhānšāh ērān and anērān (lit. "king of kings of the Aryans and the Non-Aryans") in Middle Persian and šāhānšāh aryān and anaryān in Parthian. Later kings used the same or similar phrases and these titles became the standard designations of the Sasanian sovereigns.

However the major trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek) inscription of Shapur I at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht in Fars, introduces another term ērānšahr (Iranshahr) in Middle Persian and aryānšahr in Parthian. Shapur's declaration reads an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm.. (lit. “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”). This follows his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” and thus makes it "very likely" that ērānšahr "properly denoted the empire".

According to the book and as an ancient Iranian tradition, Ērānšahr is divided into four "mythologically and mentally" defined regions or sides called kusts. These parts/regions/sides of the state during and after Khosrow I, on the pattern of the four cardinal points, are (1) Xwarāsān “northeast”; (2) Xwarwarān “southwest”; (3) Nēmrōz “southeast”; and (4) Ādurbādagān “northwest”.[1]

by the early Islamic period the "general designation for the land of the Iranians was [...] by then ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.

During the Safavid era (1501–1736), most of the territory of the Sassanid empire regained its political unity, and Safavid kings were assuming the title of "Šāhanšāh-e Irān" (Iran's king of kings).

Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians”


I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?
Firuz nahavandi defended Iran and killed umar. Is that disrespect to read the history? no, it's even written in hadiths. If you consider this disrespect you should burn all hadith books which you follow and which were written by Iranians.

Respect Shapur.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

I am a Shia, pray tell what threat do I pose to the Holy land. Is it not my land also.

Iran has its problems, but it is not a extremes exporting country like Saudi.

Members over here, respect your patriotism and opinion. Yes, Holy Land belongs to Shias as well, but under leadership of Iran, Shias are brainwashed and can cause damage to Holy Land...

You do know how people get manipulated...Example Zanibiyoon brigade from Pakistan, recruited by Irani Mullahs...

The Thing is Iranians do not represent Muslim world, at least don't represent majority of Muslim population...So, Iranians can't be allowed to threaten KSA and occupy that land because Iran is already very suspicious in eyes of Muslim countries...Any unilateral attack of Iran against KSA will cause unprecedented outrage towards them...Not to mention, Pakistani army/huge Pakistani diaspora (Sunnis/Shias both) are already there, who will counter Iranians...

This is just politics b/w KSA and Iran...Iranians know the consequences of attacking KSA...highly unlikely...Any attack will disrupt the holy cities...Iranians will be hat/sidelined more....Countries will cut off their relations with them. So, in nutshell, they are just trolling KSA...

However, Pakistanis need to keep an eye on Iran. Our interest lies in stability of Middle East/KSA...Our great friends Turks will also go against Iran if that happens...Pakistanis know where to side on when mullahs of Iran threaten to advance...

U know more than me, don't you?

 

[Śakra]

Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.

No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):

Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.

People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:

Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.

I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...


Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there


Anyways about where "Iran" was during the history:

Ardashir I, who was the first king of the Sasanian Empire, had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān (shahanshahe Iran) in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” His son Shapur I referred to himself as šāhānšāh ērān and anērān (lit. "king of kings of the Aryans and the Non-Aryans") in Middle Persian and šāhānšāh aryān and anaryān in Parthian. Later kings used the same or similar phrases and these titles became the standard designations of the Sasanian sovereigns.

However the major trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek) inscription of Shapur I at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht in Fars, introduces another term ērānšahr (Iranshahr) in Middle Persian and aryānšahr in Parthian. Shapur's declaration reads an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm.. (lit. “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”). This follows his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” and thus makes it "very likely" that ērānšahr "properly denoted the empire".

According to the book and as an ancient Iranian tradition, Ērānšahr is divided into four "mythologically and mentally" defined regions or sides called kusts. These parts/regions/sides of the state during and after Khosrow I, on the pattern of the four cardinal points, are (1) Xwarāsān “northeast”; (2) Xwarwarān “southwest”; (3) Nēmrōz “southeast”; and (4) Ādurbādagān “northwest”.[1]

by the early Islamic period the "general designation for the land of the Iranians was [...] by then ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.

During the Safavid era (1501–1736), most of the territory of the Sassanid empire regained its political unity, and Safavid kings were assuming the title of "Šāhanšāh-e Irān" (Iran's king of kings).

Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians”


I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?
Firuz nahavandi defended Iran and killed umar. Is that disrespect to read the history? no, it's even written in hadiths. If you consider this disrespect you should burn all hadith books which you follow and which were written by Iranians.

Interesting.

 

[Mamluk]

No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):

Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.

People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:

Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.

I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...


Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there

You sound ignorant about South Asia (expected from keyboard warriors who never visited countries they are talking about).

Bollywood is not India, they are mostly Punjabis - 3 or 4 % of India. The rest are Dravidians. Some in South have only retained the language, while the Northern half + Deccan speaks Indo-aryan languages because they have been culturally dominated by our ancestors - similar to how you have adopted Arabic script and vocabulary.

------

As for the rest of your nonsense, let's help you with an analogy:

In an alternate history, the French have invaded and colonized entire Middle East, Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia. They named their colony French Armenia.

Hundred years later the French empire decided to leave and independent states starts popping up. Georgia, Armenia, Ossetia and Chechnya forms a federation and calls their new country GACO-stan.

The rest of the colony/empire (Middle East + Central Asia) removes the word French from French Armenia and becomes Republic of Armenia. The elites don't want to change name, to keep such vast area united; it's hard to find a neutral name acceptable to all and would rather stick to the one given by the ignorant colonizers.

Now tell me, which one is the real Armenia? Gacostan or Republic of Armenia?

Same happened to British India. The India that you see today is living on stolen name and identity.

--
@PaklovesTurkiye @save_ghenda @Kaptaan nice analogy, no?