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

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

@salman al farsi
Their only argument are
1. Fireworship: this is debunked easily, I explained you earlier with facts, the oldest firetemples are almost 1000 years after Zoroaster (and when practiced, it functioned as "qibla", praying towards the sun or fire, both lights and symbol of good)

2. Putting people on mountains after their death (dakhmeh): as if being eaten by worms and bugs under dark ground sounds so much better.
Exposure in open sounds bizare or scary, when someone is death then he/she is death. Exposure method was very advanced for its time (read below).

The zoroastrians had different methods: open graves/tombs or exposing the death body in a high place, or burying the body in a closed casket so that the body doesnt touch the earth. The last one is the less prefered method, but used when above mentiond methods were not practical. Zoroastrians nowadays use this method.

Google the grave of darius the great in mountains. Also Ferdowsi says that Zarathustra was put inside a tomb, in city of Balkh (todays afghanistan).

The wealthy who did not practice exposure, avoided the pollution of the holy creations of fire, water and earth by the first embalming the corpse and placing it in a solid coffin, and only then entombing it, often in a stone (rock-cut) sepulcher. The royal Achaemenid tombs were thus prepared as a result of wishing to obey in a practical way the ordinance of the Vendidad. Hence, they must be classified as special astōdāns (Shahbazi, op. cit., pp. 130ff.)

About exposure: putting corpses far away from communities might have prevented diseases. A vulture would decomposite the body much faster than the natural decomposition of the body (Within hours!!). It was a fast efficient way. Thus we read the following in avesta:

6.44-46: “"Where, O Ahura Mazdā, shall we carry the body of a dead man, where lay it down?" Then said Ahura Mazdā: "On the highest places, Spitāma Zaraθuštra, so that most readily (lit., “often”) corpse-eating dogs (sunō kərəfš.xvarō) or corpse-eating birds shall perceive it. There these Mazdā-worshipers shall fasten it down, this corpse, by its feet and hair, [with pegs] of metal or stone or horn. If they do not, corpse-eating dogs and corpse-eating birds will come to drag these bones on to water and plants."”

“In the Middle Ages,” Dr. Gulick said, “corpses of people who died of plague were used as biological weapons by catapulting them into walled cities.”

Plague isn't directly transmitted from contact with dead bodies, but the presence of fleas or lice that often accompanies those bodies can transmit sicknesses to the living—so keeping dead bodies close to the living helped the disease to spread rapidly. Arnold estimates that between a third and a half of London's residents died during this 18-month epidemic.

Dr Rudolf pock of austrian plague of austrian plague commision is quoted: I find that the Parsi system of the disposal of the death bodies is the best from a hygienic point"

Even nowadays exposing the death it's one of the most environment friendly "burial" methods.

3. Xwedodah, avestan xᵛaētuuadaθa, misinterpertation as incest (by corrupt writings/tafsir 1500 years after avesta/zoroastrianism) while the original meaning was something else:

• The meaning and function of the Avestan term is not clear.
• Cornelis Tiele, in the first comprehensive modern survey of Zoroastrianism (1898), pointed out that the term was not found in the Gāθās (gathas, holy book of zoroastrians), and that the practice was “neither Zoroastrian, nor Aryan” (II/1, p. 165). He explained away the union of Ārmaiti and Ahura Mazdā by stating that her original husband had been Gə̄uš Tašan, who later merged with Ahura Mazdā (II/1, p. 148 n. 1, cf. p. 13 n. 2).
• James Darmesteter : The theory (interpertation) of the incestuous xwēdōdah arose from that between cousins, and the pressure to maintain purity of the blood and unity of the religion and race eventually led to incest (1881, pp. 373-74). When a priest told someone to marry his sister, he simply meant he should marry within the family (1881, p. 375). In fact, the incest “was probably a creation by logicians, seeking the impossible ideal of the unity of the blood.” The practice, he suggested, must always have been the exclusive right of the high nobility or high clergy (1881, p. 374; idem, 1892, p. 134). He also adhered to the indigenous interpretation of Avestan xᵛaētuuadaθa (1892, p. 126 n. 1).
• Mazdak, who introduced himself as a reformist zoroastrian, was described by sassanid zoroastrians clerics of being evil for introducing following sins: Adultery, incest, theft, prohibited forms of marriage. He was executed by zoroastrian clerics during sassanid era.
• The Avesta does not provide any explicit details on the xᵛaētuuadaθa (xwedodah) and evaluating the Avestan evidence on the basis of the Pahlavi texts and the Sasanian tradition is problematic.
• The models for these unions were found in the Zoroastrian cosmogony (myths about creation of universe, earth, first 2 humans)were possibly literally performed by some ignorants
• In the post-Sasanian Zoroastrian literature, xwēdōdah is said to refer to marriages between cousins, which have always been relatively common
• In a post-Avestan Zoroastrian text, the Dēnkard, Aži Dahāka is possessed of all possible sins and evil counsels, the opposite of the good king Jam. The name Dahāg (Dahāka) is punningly interpreted as meaning "having ten (dah) sins." His mother is Wadag (or Ōdag), herself described as a great sinner, who committed incest with her son. If incest was good, why would zahak, one of the most evil figures be called sinner and be mentioned as committing incest with his own mother?
• Adolf Rapp, suggested that, while consanguineous marriages were common among Persians, Medes, Bactrians, and Sogdians, and therefore an ancient Iranian custom, the claim that incest was permitted among Persians and Medes was an exaggeration.
• Edward west pointed out that the term is not in the Gathas and is mentioned in the Young Avesta only as a meritorious act, which means there is no evidence for next-of-kin marriages for the oldest period other than the foreign sources (p. 427). The Pahlavi texts (written almost 1500-2000 years later), however, he pointed out, contain numerous reference to this practice, which could only be rejected by disowning the Pahlavi literature (p. 428).
• In 1887, Darab Dastur Peshotan Sanjana gave his response to West in a speech to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, in which he criticized West’s description and interpretation of xwēdōdah. In a note to his English translation (1885-86, p. 66 n. 2) of Geiger (1882, p. 245), Sanjana had already contested the current understanding of Yasna 12.9, which he claimed referred to a relationship between God and man, and, in the monograph (1888), he discussed the issue in detail. He began by pointing out the vagueness of the terms “sister, daughter, mother,” which in some Oriental languages do not necessarily have the same meaning as in English, but often refer to more remote relatives. It was therefore possible, he argued, that the ancient authors might simply have misunderstood
• Next, Sanjana argued for the correctness of the traditional etymology of the word as “a gift of/to/from oneself,” “gift of alliance,” “self-dedication,” etc., citing Darmesteter (1883, II, p. 37, against Geldner, 1877, see above); moreover, the notion of “conveying a bride to the house of the bridgroom” contradicts the notion of marriage within the family (p. 91). He further refined the meaning of xᵛaētu as “communion with the Almighty,” concluding that xᵛaētuua-daθa means “the gift of communion” (pp. 50-56; 1899 ed., pp. 229-33). As for the Pahlavi passages cited by West, he stressed that several of them are about mythological situations or are inconclusive as to what kind of relationships the term refers to (pp. 60-89). Moreover, the spiritual value assigned to xwēdōdah (see above) shows that “it is a gift or power that must be by far higher and nobler than any abominable idea of marriage between the next-of-kin” (p. 68). As for the passages in which the relationship is defined, Sanjana opted for translations that differed from those of West to show that they belong in the previous categories or mean more or less the opposite of what West thought; he also suggested that some of the statements in Dēnkard 3.80 should properly be ascribed to the Jewish interlocutor (pp. 75-87; cf. Casartelli, 1884). Other passages, he thought, refer to marriage between first cousins (pp. 77-78, citing West, pp. 404, 410 [these passages from Dēnkard 3.80 are not very clear; besides, West says that marriages “between first cousins appear to be also referred to”]). Finally, Dēnkard 7.7.22-24 shows clearly that, at the time of Mazdak, intercourse with one’s mother was abhorred
• Ferdinand Justi, in his article on the government of the Persian Empire in Grundriss, also accepted Sanjana’s argument that the term referred to a spiritual relationship and interaction between married people (p. 434); he recognized that this “to us disgusting” practice, probably existed, but that it, perhaps, had been adopted from the Pharaohs and was not as common as the sources might suggest
• Early on, therefore, as with other features of Mazdaism that modern Western scholars have felt were not compatible with their image of the historical Zarathustra and his lofty ethical teachings, the xwēdōdah was ascribed to post-Zarathustrian (post-Gathic) developments. Thus, West tried to soften the implications of the cosmogonic myth of Ohrmazd and Spandarmad’s union by suggesting that, since the earth is “metaphorically” the mother of man and Ohrmazd his father, in “later superstition,” this was taken literally and cited to justify marriage between father and daughter (West, 1882, p. 393 n. 2). In a similar vein, Western scholars, taking the scarce mythological/legendary Zarathustra vita as historical truth and interpreting it to suit their individual notions of what he may have considered to be proper, have rejected the notion that (the historical) Zarathustra might have married his daughter (West, 1892, p. 299 n. 3, calls it “unlikely”; see further, e.g., Bartholomae, 1905, pp. 115-20; see also Boyce, 1975, pp. 188, 265), and modern translators and commentators have taken it for granted that “to her father and master = husband (fəδrōi ... paiθiiaēcā)” of Yasna 53.4 refers to two different persons, as claimed by a part of the indigenous tradition (see above).
• Tahmuras Dinshah Anklesaria (1840-1903) suggested that the term refers to relationships, especially that of marriage, but also marriage within one’s own, rather than an alien, community. Yasna 12.9 refers to peaceful coexistence and the religion’s preference for married rather than unmarried life, while Videvdad 8.13 refers to cattle (pp. 48-50, see Katrak, p. 34).
• Sohrab Jamshedji Bulsara (1877-1945), in his edition of the Hērbedestān and Nīrangestān, also stated that the term refers to divine kinship and the relationship between God and men and added that, if the term in the Pahlavi texts implied incest, it was to “be attributed to such communistic philosophers of the time of Mazdak” (p. 10 n. 5; cf. Sunjana, pp. 42-44; see also above and Shaked, pp. 124-31).
  
• Sheriarji Dadabhai Bharucha (b. 1843) agreed with Sanjana’s definitions, but also adduced linguistic arguments to prove that the term refers to marriage among cousins: xᵛaētu, he argued, did not apply to next-of-kin relatives, who were taoxma, but to members of the larger family. Thus, if marriage with next-of-kin relatives had been intended, the term would have been *taoxma-vadaθa, which it is not (pp. 49-57, cited in Katrak, pp. 66-68). In his book on Zoroastrian religion (1893), he stressed that the term referred to “marriage among relations,” not to next-of-kin marriages, a “vile” but unfounded charge (1979, pp. 72-73).
  
• Jamshid cawasji points out that the Avestan passages in which the term is used do not refer specifically to next-of-kin marriages, as also stressed by Sanjana and others. He discusses in some detail the passages assembled by West, pointing out that they do not specifically refer to next-of-kin marriages, but to mythical situations or to women’s respect for their fathers or husbands (pp. 60-64). As for the Pahlavi Rivāyat chapter 8, he cites Dhabhar’s opinion (above) and stresses that Dēnkard 3.80 speaks of mythological unions and spiritual relationships with God and shows how the original meaning of “gift of communion” with God came to mean “the gift of moral unions between the human sexes or among mankind generally” (pp. 74-75).
• James Darmesteter regarded the Pahlavi commentary on Yasna 45.4 (see above) as the jeu d’esprit of a casuist looking for scriptural proof (1881, p. 369), and suggested the mythical incest was eventually imitated in practice in the general population as a religious duty (1877, p. 106 n. 2). The truth, he contended, is to be found in one of the “Mesrobian manuscripts,” where it says that the Magus who wants to learn the secrets of the Fire, must first unite himself “to the Earth, his mother, to Humanity, his sister, and to Science, his daughter,” something which he, presumably, thought the Classical authors had misunderstood (pp. 308-9). Olcott’s interpretation of the “Persian incest” was cited as recently as 1977 (June/July) by Eloise Hart in the theosophical Sunrise Magazine in a series of articles on Zoroastrianism to explain the statement about Ardā Wirāz and his seven sisters.
• In 1882, the American-born Henry Steel Olcott (1832-1907), a cofounder of The Theosophical Society (1875), gave an invited lecture on “the Spirit of the Zoroastrian Religion” at the Town Hall, Bombay.

 

[adil_minhas]

@salman al farsi
Their only argument are
1. Fireworship: this is debunked easily, I explained you earlier with facts, the oldest firetemples are almost 1000 years after Zoroaster (and when practiced, it functioned as "qibla", praying towards the sun or fire, both lights and symbol of good)

2. Putting people on mountains after their death (dakhmeh): as if being eaten by worms and bugs under dark ground sounds so much better.
Exposure in open sounds bizare or scary, when someone is death then he/she is death. Exposure method was very advanced for its time (read below).

The zoroastrians had different methods: open graves/tombs or exposing the death body in a high place, or burying the body in a closed casket so that the body doesnt touch the earth. The last one is the less prefered method, but used when above mentiond methods were not practical. Zoroastrians nowadays use this method.

Google the grave of darius the great in mountains. Also Ferdowsi says that Zarathustra was put inside a tomb, in city of Balkh (todays afghanistan).

The wealthy who did not practice exposure, avoided the pollution of the holy creations of fire, water and earth by the first embalming the corpse and placing it in a solid coffin, and only then entombing it, often in a stone (rock-cut) sepulcher. The royal Achaemenid tombs were thus prepared as a result of wishing to obey in a practical way the ordinance of the Vendidad. Hence, they must be classified as special astōdāns (Shahbazi, op. cit., pp. 130ff.)

About exposure: putting corpses far away from communities might have prevented diseases. A vulture would decomposite the body much faster than the natural decomposition of the body (Within hours!!). It was a fast efficient way. Thus we read the following in avesta:

6.44-46: “"Where, O Ahura Mazdā, shall we carry the body of a dead man, where lay it down?" Then said Ahura Mazdā: "On the highest places, Spitāma Zaraθuštra, so that most readily (lit., “often”) corpse-eating dogs (sunō kərəfš.xvarō) or corpse-eating birds shall perceive it. There these Mazdā-worshipers shall fasten it down, this corpse, by its feet and hair, [with pegs] of metal or stone or horn. If they do not, corpse-eating dogs and corpse-eating birds will come to drag these bones on to water and plants."”

“In the Middle Ages,” Dr. Gulick said, “corpses of people who died of plague were used as biological weapons by catapulting them into walled cities.”

Plague isn't directly transmitted from contact with dead bodies, but the presence of fleas or lice that often accompanies those bodies can transmit sicknesses to the living—so keeping dead bodies close to the living helped the disease to spread rapidly. Arnold estimates that between a third and a half of London's residents died during this 18-month epidemic.

Dr Rudolf pock of austrian plague of austrian plague commision is quoted: I find that the Parsi system of the disposal of the death bodies is the best from a hygienic point"

Even nowadays exposing the death it's one of the most environment friendly "burial" methods.

3. Xwedodah, avestan xᵛaētuuadaθa, misinterpertation as incest (by corrupt writings/tafsir 1500 years after avesta/zoroastrianism) while the original meaning was something else:

• The meaning and function of the Avestan term is not clear.
• Cornelis Tiele, in the first comprehensive modern survey of Zoroastrianism (1898), pointed out that the term was not found in the Gāθās (gathas, holy book of zoroastrians), and that the practice was “neither Zoroastrian, nor Aryan” (II/1, p. 165). He explained away the union of Ārmaiti and Ahura Mazdā by stating that her original husband had been Gə̄uš Tašan, who later merged with Ahura Mazdā (II/1, p. 148 n. 1, cf. p. 13 n. 2).
• James Darmesteter : The theory (interpertation) of the incestuous xwēdōdah arose from that between cousins, and the pressure to maintain purity of the blood and unity of the religion and race eventually led to incest (1881, pp. 373-74). When a priest told someone to marry his sister, he simply meant he should marry within the family (1881, p. 375). In fact, the incest “was probably a creation by logicians, seeking the impossible ideal of the unity of the blood.” The practice, he suggested, must always have been the exclusive right of the high nobility or high clergy (1881, p. 374; idem, 1892, p. 134). He also adhered to the indigenous interpretation of Avestan xᵛaētuuadaθa (1892, p. 126 n. 1).
• Mazdak, who introduced himself as a reformist zoroastrian, was described by sassanid zoroastrians clerics of being evil for introducing following sins: Adultery, incest, theft, prohibited forms of marriage. He was executed by zoroastrian clerics during sassanid era.
• The Avesta does not provide any explicit details on the xᵛaētuuadaθa (xwedodah) and evaluating the Avestan evidence on the basis of the Pahlavi texts and the Sasanian tradition is problematic.
• The models for these unions were found in the Zoroastrian cosmogony (myths about creation of universe, earth, first 2 humans)were possibly literally performed by some ignorants
• In the post-Sasanian Zoroastrian literature, xwēdōdah is said to refer to marriages between cousins, which have always been relatively common
• In a post-Avestan Zoroastrian text, the Dēnkard, Aži Dahāka is possessed of all possible sins and evil counsels, the opposite of the good king Jam. The name Dahāg (Dahāka) is punningly interpreted as meaning "having ten (dah) sins." His mother is Wadag (or Ōdag), herself described as a great sinner, who committed incest with her son. If incest was good, why would zahak, one of the most evil figures be called sinner and be mentioned as committing incest with his own mother?
• Adolf Rapp, suggested that, while consanguineous marriages were common among Persians, Medes, Bactrians, and Sogdians, and therefore an ancient Iranian custom, the claim that incest was permitted among Persians and Medes was an exaggeration.
• Edward west pointed out that the term is not in the Gathas and is mentioned in the Young Avesta only as a meritorious act, which means there is no evidence for next-of-kin marriages for the oldest period other than the foreign sources (p. 427). The Pahlavi texts (written almost 1500-2000 years later), however, he pointed out, contain numerous reference to this practice, which could only be rejected by disowning the Pahlavi literature (p. 428).
• In 1887, Darab Dastur Peshotan Sanjana gave his response to West in a speech to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, in which he criticized West’s description and interpretation of xwēdōdah. In a note to his English translation (1885-86, p. 66 n. 2) of Geiger (1882, p. 245), Sanjana had already contested the current understanding of Yasna 12.9, which he claimed referred to a relationship between God and man, and, in the monograph (1888), he discussed the issue in detail. He began by pointing out the vagueness of the terms “sister, daughter, mother,” which in some Oriental languages do not necessarily have the same meaning as in English, but often refer to more remote relatives. It was therefore possible, he argued, that the ancient authors might simply have misunderstood
• Next, Sanjana argued for the correctness of the traditional etymology of the word as “a gift of/to/from oneself,” “gift of alliance,” “self-dedication,” etc., citing Darmesteter (1883, II, p. 37, against Geldner, 1877, see above); moreover, the notion of “conveying a bride to the house of the bridgroom” contradicts the notion of marriage within the family (p. 91). He further refined the meaning of xᵛaētu as “communion with the Almighty,” concluding that xᵛaētuua-daθa means “the gift of communion” (pp. 50-56; 1899 ed., pp. 229-33). As for the Pahlavi passages cited by West, he stressed that several of them are about mythological situations or are inconclusive as to what kind of relationships the term refers to (pp. 60-89). Moreover, the spiritual value assigned to xwēdōdah (see above) shows that “it is a gift or power that must be by far higher and nobler than any abominable idea of marriage between the next-of-kin” (p. 68). As for the passages in which the relationship is defined, Sanjana opted for translations that differed from those of West to show that they belong in the previous categories or mean more or less the opposite of what West thought; he also suggested that some of the statements in Dēnkard 3.80 should properly be ascribed to the Jewish interlocutor (pp. 75-87; cf. Casartelli, 1884). Other passages, he thought, refer to marriage between first cousins (pp. 77-78, citing West, pp. 404, 410 [these passages from Dēnkard 3.80 are not very clear; besides, West says that marriages “between first cousins appear to be also referred to”]). Finally, Dēnkard 7.7.22-24 shows clearly that, at the time of Mazdak, intercourse with one’s mother was abhorred
• Ferdinand Justi, in his article on the government of the Persian Empire in Grundriss, also accepted Sanjana’s argument that the term referred to a spiritual relationship and interaction between married people (p. 434); he recognized that this “to us disgusting” practice, probably existed, but that it, perhaps, had been adopted from the Pharaohs and was not as common as the sources might suggest
• Early on, therefore, as with other features of Mazdaism that modern Western scholars have felt were not compatible with their image of the historical Zarathustra and his lofty ethical teachings, the xwēdōdah was ascribed to post-Zarathustrian (post-Gathic) developments. Thus, West tried to soften the implications of the cosmogonic myth of Ohrmazd and Spandarmad’s union by suggesting that, since the earth is “metaphorically” the mother of man and Ohrmazd his father, in “later superstition,” this was taken literally and cited to justify marriage between father and daughter (West, 1882, p. 393 n. 2). In a similar vein, Western scholars, taking the scarce mythological/legendary Zarathustra vita as historical truth and interpreting it to suit their individual notions of what he may have considered to be proper, have rejected the notion that (the historical) Zarathustra might have married his daughter (West, 1892, p. 299 n. 3, calls it “unlikely”; see further, e.g., Bartholomae, 1905, pp. 115-20; see also Boyce, 1975, pp. 188, 265), and modern translators and commentators have taken it for granted that “to her father and master = husband (fəδrōi ... paiθiiaēcā)” of Yasna 53.4 refers to two different persons, as claimed by a part of the indigenous tradition (see above).
• Tahmuras Dinshah Anklesaria (1840-1903) suggested that the term refers to relationships, especially that of marriage, but also marriage within one’s own, rather than an alien, community. Yasna 12.9 refers to peaceful coexistence and the religion’s preference for married rather than unmarried life, while Videvdad 8.13 refers to cattle (pp. 48-50, see Katrak, p. 34).
• Sohrab Jamshedji Bulsara (1877-1945), in his edition of the Hērbedestān and Nīrangestān, also stated that the term refers to divine kinship and the relationship between God and men and added that, if the term in the Pahlavi texts implied incest, it was to “be attributed to such communistic philosophers of the time of Mazdak” (p. 10 n. 5; cf. Sunjana, pp. 42-44; see also above and Shaked, pp. 124-31).
  
• Sheriarji Dadabhai Bharucha (b. 1843) agreed with Sanjana’s definitions, but also adduced linguistic arguments to prove that the term refers to marriage among cousins: xᵛaētu, he argued, did not apply to next-of-kin relatives, who were taoxma, but to members of the larger family. Thus, if marriage with next-of-kin relatives had been intended, the term would have been *taoxma-vadaθa, which it is not (pp. 49-57, cited in Katrak, pp. 66-68). In his book on Zoroastrian religion (1893), he stressed that the term referred to “marriage among relations,” not to next-of-kin marriages, a “vile” but unfounded charge (1979, pp. 72-73).
  
• Jamshid cawasji points out that the Avestan passages in which the term is used do not refer specifically to next-of-kin marriages, as also stressed by Sanjana and others. He discusses in some detail the passages assembled by West, pointing out that they do not specifically refer to next-of-kin marriages, but to mythical situations or to women’s respect for their fathers or husbands (pp. 60-64). As for the Pahlavi Rivāyat chapter 8, he cites Dhabhar’s opinion (above) and stresses that Dēnkard 3.80 speaks of mythological unions and spiritual relationships with God and shows how the original meaning of “gift of communion” with God came to mean “the gift of moral unions between the human sexes or among mankind generally” (pp. 74-75).
• James Darmesteter regarded the Pahlavi commentary on Yasna 45.4 (see above) as the jeu d’esprit of a casuist looking for scriptural proof (1881, p. 369), and suggested the mythical incest was eventually imitated in practice in the general population as a religious duty (1877, p. 106 n. 2). The truth, he contended, is to be found in one of the “Mesrobian manuscripts,” where it says that the Magus who wants to learn the secrets of the Fire, must first unite himself “to the Earth, his mother, to Humanity, his sister, and to Science, his daughter,” something which he, presumably, thought the Classical authors had misunderstood (pp. 308-9). Olcott’s interpretation of the “Persian incest” was cited as recently as 1977 (June/July) by Eloise Hart in the theosophical Sunrise Magazine in a series of articles on Zoroastrianism to explain the statement about Ardā Wirāz and his seven sisters.
• In 1882, the American-born Henry Steel Olcott (1832-1907), a cofounder of The Theosophical Society (1875), gave an invited lecture on “the Spirit of the Zoroastrian Religion” at the Town Hall, Bombay.

An innocent question brother.

Why are you trying so hard to convince Arabs? Do you really need to?

Remember your history. It is yours and only yours.

 

[Vazir]

I don't know why we are discussing Zoroastrianism here. It's irrelevant to this topic.

 

[adil_minhas]

I don't know why we are discussing Zoroastrianism here. It's irrelevant to this topic.

Is it really?

I wonder.

@I.R.A what do you think?

 

[Awan68]

U can't attack jahel Afghani properly, what to speak of attacking Iran?.......lol.......joker.

More than 50% of afghanistan is held by our proxies u ignorant f uck and ask those 50 dead Ana soldiers in return for 2 fc martyrs how properly we can attack, anways why the heck am i even replying to a little shit from a conventional military nation which we can erase from the face of the earth with a little push of a button....., lol if u wanted to stand proudly among nations u had to show some guts n develop nukes which obviously u iranian mullahs were too cowardly to do, instead u choose to come here on pdf n talk big, so run off little dog with ur tail between ur legs, everyone saw ur guts when u buckled under Us pressure right infront of the entire world, lol u idiot iranians are a joke to this world, u are like the kimmy korea of middleeast, threatening Us carriers with little speed boats...heck even kimmy has more guts than u...

 

[Vazir]

I dont know if you guys are high or not but dont forget that Indians are working in chabhar and Other infrastructure such as road connecting Afghanistan with Iran.

Any attackon these assets or Indians in Iran will only make us to take part in your war as well.

If Pakistan does go to war with Iran (highly unlikely, but let's imagine a hypothetical scenario) we wouldn't have any reason to hit Chahbahar, and would most probably stay away from the Iran-Afghanistan route in good spirit. That would keep the pressure on India to hit Pakistan away for some time.

And India is most powerful and strongest nation in Southern Asian Region, it wont metter if we have to face pakistan or Turkey(Anatolia) or Whole GCC(we have defeated Arabs in their prime at gates of India).

Now let's be honest. Pakistan isn't going to war with India, we're happy enough with fighting proxy wars. Even if we did, it would end in a stalemate. Turkey is a member of NATO, and can be expected to have some amazing firepower behind them. I don't see India achieving it's objective in a war with Turkey, although I'm pretty sure India can defend her motherland against them, maybe. As for GCC, they're a joke. They will be beaten bad in a war with India, even though I don't see a war between these two, ever.

 

[Vazir]

Is it really?

I wonder.

@I.R.A what do you think?

Iran is mostly Muslim with a touch of atheism. Even so, their FoPo is affected more due to geopolitical reasons rather than religious reasons (as opposed to the Saudis, might I add).

 

[Vazir]

More than 50% of afghanistan is held by our proxies u ignorant f uck and ask those 50 dead Ana soldiers in return for 2 fc martyrs how properly we can attack, anways why the heck am i even replying to a little shit from a conventional military nation which we can erase from the face of the earth with a little push of a button....., lol if u wanted to stand proudly among nations u had to show some guts n develop nukes which obviously u iranian mullahs were too cowardly to do, instead u choose to come here on pdf n talk big, so run off little dog with ur tail between ur legs, everyone saw ur guts when u buckled under Us pressure right infront of the entire world, lol u idiot iranians are a joke to this world, u are like the kimmy korea of middleeast, threatening Us carriers with little speed boats...heck even kimmy has more guts than u...

Nah, Kimmy is more of an a-hole than Iran. But I'd say Iran can do better than it's doing right now.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

An innocent question brother.

Why are you trying so hard to convince Arabs? Do you really need to?

Remember your history. It is yours and only yours.

Thanks Indian brother, indeed we Iranian consider India as our cultural/ethnic/historical cousins from the once united Indo-Iranian stock.

That's why we're proud of any achievement of India. The blessed land of India will end in top 3 of world economies, is number 1 in the world by cultivated and arable land! (dwarfing so called "blessed" desert countries, all of them together), 9th in the world by renewable water resource, has the Zoroastrian Indo-persian communities (Parsi and Irani) which were/are major figures in producing beautiful nucleair weapons for India, big role in Indian economy (figures such as Tata).
The lands where in the mighty beautiful Himalaya is standing, firm, tall and proud (India, Nepal, Tajikistan) and we'll follow as example. The land with beautiful nature, history, sites. India is in full progress. We're happy and we can only be happy about it.

 

[adil_minhas]

Iran is mostly Muslim with a touch of atheism. Even so, their FoPo is affected more due to geopolitical reasons rather than religious reasons (as opposed to the Saudis, might I add).

Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree with you.

It is possible they just do not like the Arabs very much. Nor think very highly of them. And think of themselves as the natural leaders of the region and indeed of geopolitical Islam itself.

Of course, we could both be wrong. Since that's really not our fight.

 

[Vazir]

Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree with you.

It is possible they just do not like the Arabs very much. Nor think very highly of them. And think of themselves as the natural leaders of the region and indeed of geopolitical Islam itself.

Eh, I hate the Arabs too. Al-Saud dynasty didn't have a sane ruler since ol' Faisal. The Saudi monarchs can go to hell for all I care.

 

[I.R.A]

Is it really?

I wonder.

@I.R.A what do you think?

You don't want to read my thoughts on this ......... most of them won't be able to digest ......... this most of them includes both who call themselves sunni and those who think they are shia.

I am happy to see many posts on this thread ............ the open declarations ........... if people had a brain they would understand (how a parallel religion was constructed). And the ones who are stuck with what Hear say has to say about future ...... they are blind .......... nobody except ALLAH knows what future beholds .......... any Muslim who reads Quran would know this. So all of them can start a full scale war based on their hear say ......... who cares ......... may be after that Muslims would remain and we can get rid of this sunni shia thingy once and for all.

And let me share another point Palestine is not a holy place ........... watch John Macarthy, read Kamal Salibi and see which city is real Jerusalem. See what years of Archaeological search in Israel has found ......... nothing. So I won't put too much holy war value to Palestine Israel conflict except that those places were ruled by Muslims and Muslims have the right to live a free life there.

 

[adil_minhas]

Thanks Indian brother, indeed we Iranian consider India as our cultural/ethnic/historical cousins from the once united Indo-Iranian stock.

That's why we're proud of any achievement of India. The blessed land of India will end in top 3 of world economies, is number 1 in the world by cultivated and arable land! (dwarfing so called "blessed" desert countries, all of them together), 9th in the world by renewable water resource, has the Zoroastrian Indo-persian communities (Parsi and Irani) which were/are major figures in producing beautiful nucleair weapons for India, big role in Indian economy (figures such as Tata).
The lands where in the mighty beautiful Himalaya is standing, firm, tall and proud (India, Nepal, Tajikistan) and we'll follow as example. The land with beautiful nature, history, sites. India is in full progress. We're happy and we can only be happy about it.

Bro to be honest, you will be hard pressed to find a single Indian, man or woman, who has anything but positive things to say about Iran and Iranians.

We have tons of students from the middle east. Lots of Jordanians. But the way Iranians settle into our culture and daily life living for years on end in India even after their studies are over) it is obvious there is a strong spiritual and civilizational connect.

I personally am rooting for you guys. And respect your independence and spine greatly. Your people show a huge amount of character which is not missed by the world.

You don't want to read my thoughts on this ......... most of them won't be able to digest ......... this most of them includes both who call themselves sunni and those who think they are shia.

I am happy to see many posts on this thread ............ the open declarations ........... if people had a brain they would understand (how a parallel religion was constructed). And the ones who are stuck with what Hear say has to say about future ...... they are blind .......... nobody except ALLAH knows what future beholds .......... any Muslim who reads Quran would know this. So all of them can start a full scale war based on their hear say ......... who cares ......... may be after that Muslims would remain and we can get rid of this sunni shia thingy once and for all.

And let me share another point Palestine is not a holy place ........... watch John Macarthy, read Kamal Salibi and see which city is real Jerusalem. See what years of Archaeological search in Israel has found ......... nothing. So I won't put too much holy war value to Palestine Israel conflict except that those places were ruled by Muslims and Muslims have the right to live a free life there.

So the great Kingdom of Heaven, the Great Salladin, fought for nothing?

 

[Awan68]

And I thought they discounted those cities as they are holy for every Muslim on this planet. Do you mean to suggest you are the custodian of the cities exclusively? Are you suggesting such a thing?



When I read this segment, it emerges to be an antithetical one. If you are not stupid, then you will not fight Iran for as quoted above.

Honestly, did you think this one out? Truly?



How old are you, seriously? What do you think Iran has? Peanuts? And what do you think will Russia do? Twiddle thumbs? What do you think will India do?

@PaklovesTurkiye : enjoyable read




No my dear. Firstly, learn some etiquettes of posting seriously, especially while quoting me.

Mother Russia will 'f uck' you thoroughly. Then mother Russia will 'f uck' you more thoroughly, and then still 'f uck' you more thoroughly.

Iran is under Russian protection. Why do you think US is quite on it? And why North Korea is being given the boot?

And for your babur and nasr, it shall shaft you with the very same too. Just remember, you are talking of Russia here. It has no love lost for you either.

Get the gist?

@WAJsal

please edit accordingly. These kids do take a toll at times

Boy, the last time russia came to f uck us, it went back with half a country, how's that for facts...no country fights a nuclear nation for one of its allies lol, russia wont either, lol, we saw the Us slap russia infront of the entire world with their cruise missle attacks while russia could only come up with threats, as i said if u were a little older n had better understanding of things u would knw that russia will only assist iran directly when confronted with a conventional power, they simply wont go to war with a nuke state, lol,russia will never lock horns with us again, too many nightmares of the past u see, specially not with half of russia under our missle range and the recent mirv n slcm second strike capability we attained, so i would advise u to learn geo politics better n gain a comprehensive knowledge of all things military before indulging in a debate with me again, my tone is casual cause iam talking to absolute brain farts that dont deserve better replys...lol as usual iranian kids hiding behind daddy russia, have u no backbone urselves...

Nah, Kimmy is more of an a-hole than Iran. But I'd say Iran can do better than it's doing right now.

Lol im sure they can do a better job at being A holes, comes naturally to them...

 

[Vazir]

.


I personally am rooting for you guys. And respect your independence and spine greatly. Your people show a huge amount of character which is not missed by the world.

I'll agree with you here, sir. Iranians are among the smartest people I have ever come to witness. The open-minded approach is undertaken by the majority, which is nothing short of amazing.
But what I have come to learn is the sheer force of character and will power that accompanies y'all. Your government has a lot to learn, but when they do, Iran shall prosper even more.
Respect from a Pakistani.
PS please work on your economy, it has yuuuge potential.