Mediation Between Saudi and Iran Going Slowly

[Beny Karachun]

They are clowns, they ramble against US and Israel 24/7 while their mullahs enrich themselves and sit comfortably in Iran while making non Iranian Shia for their interests.

Everyday Israel strike them in Syria and their resistance disappears as they come up with new story everytime to make excuse to not respond. Like they shot down all Israeli missiles with their air defense or Israel is nervous or other nonsense. They blow hit air and when push come to shove they are like everyone else they accuse of being vassals to US.

Israel is literally striking them now. It's a weekly thing. But they avoid posting threads on that here because they won't be able to abuse Arab states or call Sunni states like Turkey and Pakistan as vassal states. Im thinking of starting thread to show all the attacks and shut these clowns that ramble about resistance up
....

Bombs planted on Israeli-Syrian border, 4 terrorists dead.
Israel is striking Syria in response.

 

[SalarHaqq]

@Sineva

Buddy , your regime is on quest form modern Persian empire.

I've always told people you guys are Persian nationalists who are anti Muslim. You are anti Sunni narrative is really anti Muslim one. But since you can't do anti Muslim narrative as zoroastrians u make up Twelver Shia sect to turn Islam into one that calls for worshipping Persian civilization. You got no qualms with US or Israel but they will compete with anyone over interests in region. Nothing less or more. Don't blow it out of proportion.

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM

Is there any way to make the quoted person cease assigning religious or ethnic affiliations to users he interacts with based merely on the political opinions they express?

In the present case he is addressing a member from New Zealand with European roots who does not appear to be Iranian at all (Sineva), as forumers who have known him online for years will gladly confirm. Falcon29 is calling Sineva a "Persian nationalist" and a "Zoroastrian".

It was barely a few days ago that he proceeded in a similar manner with an Indian user (mazeto), labelling him a "Shia Muslim who imagines he is of Persian ethnicity", despite the fact that the Indian user in question not only claimed he is not of Muslim faith but actually never made any mention of "Persian ethnicity" in his posts. After I reported this, it would seem the thread was deleted.

Particularly when it comes to Iran, it is clear that various persons not hailing from that country are either interested in following developments relative to it, are sympathetic to it or like to debunk propaganda directed against it. I will not go into the reasons why this is so, other than reminding everyone that the 1979 Iranian revolution, like most modern revolutions (and despite its differences with the preceding ones), has a universal anti-imperialist appeal, not just among Muslims but beyond, among what Iranian discourse refers to as the downtrodden of the world as well as their supporters. Which is why of all countries more often discussed here at PDF, Iran is relatively speaking the one with the largest number of foreign followers. It is thus completely irrational to assume, like Falcon29 systematically does, that anyone expressing the least solidarity with Iran is either a "Shia" or a "Persian". In fact, this behaviour is bordering on sectarian and ethnic bullying.

The quoted user is on record for operating similar attributions to Muslims, in particular Iranian authorities: in that deleted thread mentioned above, he called Iranian officials "atheists and Zoroastrians" despite the fact that said officials identify themselves as Muslims; previously, he had called the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei an "atheist" (I can provide a screenshot of that particular instance if required to do so).

This is called takfir. Certainly you know as well as I do, that in Islamic tradition and fiq, takfir is a most sensitive issue that is not to be taken lightly. Islamic teachings consider that individual Muslims ought not to excommunicate at a whim. Such procedures are only admissible if certain strict criteria defined by a large consesus of top religious scholars are met. Falcon29 is neither a religious scholar as far as we know, nor does his obviously subjective, highly interpretative rarely substantiated opinion concerning Iranian policy warrant this sort of judgement against Iranian political leaders.

For instance, in the aforementioned deleted thread, he argued that since Iranian authorities claim the Prophet of Islam (saaws) "did not order to fight the Persian empire" of that time, it would follow that Iranian authorities are "hostile" to the Prophet and that therefore, they are "atheists or Zoroastrians".

I'm sure you can immediately perceive the holes and faulty deductions in this line of argumentation: for one, what our beloved Prophet (saaws) said or did not say about the Persian empire is not a central question of Islamic theology, nor is there an absolute consensus among Islamic scholars, therefore having diverging opinions on the matter does not automatically denote "opposition" to the Prophet (saaws) nor does it make one a "non-Muslim" let alone an "atheist" or a "Zoroastrian"; secondly, he provided no evidence for his claim in the first place, and in reality there is no particular official position adopted by the Iranian leadership on this question (in fact, I know that political figures in Iran have expressed different opinions about this).

Therefore, I would suggest, including with the mentioned user's own salvation in mind, to prevent him from resorting to takfir again. It would be equally welcome if he was made to stop assigning baseless ethnic or confessional affiliations to whomever he engages with in discussions. Thank you.

 

[Ich]

Talks between Saudi and Iran? Why not? Talk is always the base for peace.

 

[Ichigo]

If Pakistan is playing a role to bring two muslim countries closer and helping in resolving their issues, i am all in for it. trust me it has been ongoing for a while, though it will take sometime or it might never result in these two being buddies and all tat. but for sure will lead some ease in Syria and yemen where both are playing proxy proxy and no more fronts will open anytime soon like Syria and Yemen.
As for ppl abusing each side shia or sunni or wahabi.... plz hold ur F horses. think first.... call watever u wanna call urself, for u r a musalman first rest is all your personal baggage nothing to do wid ISLAM.... Wrong is wrong be it Sunni Shia or Wahabi or watever... its a Musalman who did wrong to another musalman. i wonder y u can see that. and cursing each other even now.... like wat the... u guys have no brains if u cant see wat the hell are u doing and wat this has resulted in. So plz stop with this shit....

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

vassals[pakistan

Some say Pakistan is vassal of usa.. others say Pakistan is vassal of china..
They are all wrong..
Pakistan cant be categorized as a vassal state.. vassal state is japan or commonwealth countries.. Countless African nations that function under french or some european nations ran by Brussels...

 

[Falcon29]

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM

Is there any way to make the quoted person cease assigning religious or ethnic affiliations to users he interacts with based merely on the political opinions they express?

No, it is not 'assigning' , it's simply the truth. Don't care how many of you guys false flag or it try to make it appear otherwise, I can easily tell your background. Your twelver religious motivation is relevant, and we need to address to it so you stop causing fitnah and hatred against Muslims in ME region on religious/sectarian basis. Also to not blindly support all of Iranian regime doings out of religious motives.

In the present case he is addressing a member from New Zealand with European roots who does not appear to be Iranian at all (Sineva), as forumers who have known him online for years will gladly confirm. Falcon29 is calling Sineva a "Persian nationalist" and a "Zoroastrian".

He's Iranian actually.

It was barely a few days ago that he proceeded in a similar manner with an Indian user (mazeto), labelling him a "Shia Muslim who imagines he is of Persian ethnicity", despite the fact that the Indian user in question not only claimed he is not of Muslim faith but actually never made any mention of "Persian ethnicity" in his posts. After I reported this, it would seem the thread was deleted.

Yep, he's an Indian Shia who believes he has ethnic Persian roots. And he peddles same Iranian propaganda we see all the time. How an atheist and non-Muslim going to claim Iran is the most Islamic Muslim nation and fights for Islam/justice and what not? Why is non-Muslim Indian Hindu trying to push Iranian regime narrative in ME section? You think we are all stupid? Some people are too polite and naive but I have zero tolerance for you guys and your propaganda lies.

For instance, in the aforementioned deleted thread, he argued that since Iranian authorities claim the Prophet of Islam (saaws) "did not order to fight the Persian empire" of that time, it would follow that Iranian authorities are "hostile" to the Prophet and that therefore, they are "atheists or Zoroastrians".

It's not complicated, much of the twelver ideology is to paint Muslims wars with Persia as illegitimate and claim Prophet and his cousins were against of it. All this fixation on ancient Persian empire shows loyalty to Persian nationalism and is their sole motivator in whole twelver ideology. I do not believe such people as who actively try to suggest those wars were illegtimate and who claim Persian will be army of Mahdi and Mahdi will be of Persian descent himself and so on. Huge fixation on Persia. When Islam came down as a religion by God to inform us he created us to worship up and to submit to him.

People who bring Persian agenda into Islam to me are missing point of Islam and have political/cultural motives that are nothing to do with Islam. So very simple I can't be sure Iranian supreme leader is Muslim until he gives me his honest opinion of Muslim defensive war against Persia. If he opposes it and claims the Sahaba are usurpers and Ali opposed this and that then he is doing so out of loyalty to his ethnic/national background and no other reason.

Therefore, I would suggest, including with the mentioned user's own salvation in mind, to prevent him from resorting to takfir again. It would be equally welcome if he was made to stop assigning baseless ethnic or confessional affiliations to whomever he engages with in discussions. Thank you.

I know you guys report all my posts for exposing you but instead you should reset yourself and ask yourself what you believe in and why. Since it seems your whole preaching on this forum is to praise Iran and make them out to be God's pious servants. There's nothing about God for you. That's not good.

You are previous user Aspen too btw. I told you before and I tell you now again, you not gonna gain anything for yourself by doing this propaganda for Iranian regime. It's like form of self harm. I would understand if you try to convince people to follow God and return to him but anything else makes no sense.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

What are you talking about? Whabbism does not accept Shiites and calls them heretics. Their philosophy preaches extermination of Shiites and other religions.

So here is the thing, Wahabbism is insulting and Gulf Arabs find the designation offensive as they refer to themselves as Hanbalis, based on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RA mazhab of Sunni Islam.

Salafis are an altogether different thing because they generally reject 4 imams of Sunni Islam and have their own scholars.

Yes, many of the two former groups refer to Shias as Rafidhi (rejectors,) which is offensive and should be banned on this forum. I agree. However not all Gulf Arabs do, you would be surprised.

There are various ethnic, racial, historic rivalries at play here, beyond just religion.

I have also seen a disturbing trend among Shia leaders and Iranian/Assad rhetoric against Sunnis and Salafis as takfiris (ones who declare others kaffir.) This term also should be banned from the forum.

If we are going to have political differences, please keep religion out of it please. We are all Muslims: Sunni, Salafis, Shias. Our elders (Sunni, Shia) had respect and learned from each other. They kept theological disputes in the proper place, which were with esteemed scholars who could discuss with each other with knowledge and find commonalities (not differences.)

The Hajj is done because House of Saud is not religious and is mostly secular when compared to the religious institution. And if they were to deny other sects of Islam the right to worship at Mecca, the west would steal Mecca and Vaticanize it. Or there would be war.

The Sunni Islamic world accepts Shias as an equal part of the Muslim world. This is not up for question. Even with all the rhetoric, you would be surprised how many Arab (even Gulf ones) scholars hold on to this view.

No one can ban Shias from Hajj, simply because Sunnis would not allow it. There are some differences, but not anything which Shias do takes them out of Islam (unlike say Ahmadiyyas, Nation of Islam, etc.)

So let’s not make Saudi Arabia some saint country. There Petro dollars have been spent on mayhem and murder and exporting their ideology all across the world.

Yes, I agree that their policies are contemptible, but Iran is not innocent either. Unfortunately the hate has become too much on both sides and needs to be reined in.

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM

Is there any way to make the quoted person cease assigning religious or ethnic affiliations to users he interacts with based merely on the political opinions they express?

In the present case he is addressing a member from New Zealand with European roots who does not appear to be Iranian at all (Sineva), as forumers who have known him online for years will gladly confirm. Falcon29 is calling Sineva a "Persian nationalist" and a "Zoroastrian".

It was barely a few days ago that he proceeded in a similar manner with an Indian user (mazeto), labelling him a "Shia Muslim who imagines he is of Persian ethnicity", despite the fact that the Indian user in question not only claimed he is not of Muslim faith but actually never made any mention of "Persian ethnicity" in his posts. After I reported this, it would seem the thread was deleted.

Particularly when it comes to Iran, it is clear that various persons not hailing from that country are either interested in following developments relative to it, are sympathetic to it or like to debunk propaganda directed against it. I will not go into the reasons why this is so, other than reminding everyone that the 1979 Iranian revolution, like most modern revolutions (and despite its differences with the preceding ones), has a universal anti-imperialist appeal, not just among Muslims but beyond, among what Iranian discourse refers to as the downtrodden of the world as well as their supporters. Which is why of all countries more often discussed here at PDF, Iran is relatively speaking the one with the largest number of foreign followers. It is thus completely irrational to assume, like Falcon29 systematically does, that anyone expressing the least solidarity with Iran is either a "Shia" or a "Persian". In fact, this behaviour is bordering on sectarian and ethnic bullying.

The quoted user is on record for operating similar attributions to Muslims, in particular Iranian authorities: in that deleted thread mentioned above, he called Iranian officials "atheists and Zoroastrians" despite the fact that said officials identify themselves as Muslims; previously, he had called the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei an "atheist" (I can provide a screenshot of that particular instance if required to do so).

This is called takfir. Certainly you know as well as I do, that in Islamic tradition and fiq, takfir is a most sensitive issue that is not to be taken lightly. Islamic teachings consider that individual Muslims ought not to excommunicate at a whim. Such procedures are only admissible if certain strict criteria defined by a large consesus of top religious scholars are met. Falcon29 is neither a religious scholar as far as we know, nor does his obviously subjective, highly interpretative rarely substantiated opinion concerning Iranian policy warrant this sort of judgement against Iranian political leaders.

For instance, in the aforementioned deleted thread, he argued that since Iranian authorities claim the Prophet of Islam (saaws) "did not order to fight the Persian empire" of that time, it would follow that Iranian authorities are "hostile" to the Prophet and that therefore, they are "atheists or Zoroastrians".

I'm sure you can immediately perceive the holes and faulty deductions in this line of argumentation: for one, what our beloved Prophet (saaws) said or did not say about the Persian empire is not a central question of Islamic theology, nor is there an absolute consensus among Islamic scholars, therefore having diverging opinions on the matter does not automatically denote "opposition" to the Prophet (saaws) nor does it make one a "non-Muslim" let alone an "atheist" or a "Zoroastrian"; secondly, he provided no evidence for his claim in the first place, and in reality there is no particular official position adopted by the Iranian leadership on this question (in fact, I know that political figures in Iran have expressed different opinions about this).

Therefore, I would suggest, including with the mentioned user's own salvation in mind, to prevent him from resorting to takfir again. It would be equally welcome if he was made to stop assigning baseless ethnic or confessional affiliations to whomever he engages with in discussions. Thank you.

I was under the impression that you were Pakistani, but here you are so bothered by what an Arab user is saying about Iranian leaders and the Iranian government.

I do not agree with some of the things brother @Falcon29 had said in the past, but he has been banned for those remarks and did his time.

If we silence the last prominent Arab voice on this forum, it would be a tremendous injustice. The Arab view will be anti-Iranian, and sometimes anti-Turkish too, but we cannot silence the viewpoints of those we disagree with.

That is the conversation I had with the respectable Iranian brother above, we all need to take a step back and leave the religious debates to scholars.

I would request brother @Falcon29 to make extra effort to try to even avoid using the word Shia, if at all possible, as Pakistanis are sensitive to our demographic weakness to sectarianism.

I think this is why PDF bans religious discussions mainly.

May Allah swt bless you all.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Some say Pakistan is vassal of usa.. others say Pakistan is vassal of china..
They are all wrong..
Pakistan cant be categorized as a vassal state.. vassal state is japan or commonwealth countries.. Countless African nations that function under french or some european nations ran by Brussels...

Pakistan is a regional power which has undergone two to three decades of isolation. We have become the geopolitical pivot of Eurasia. Our alliance is coveted by all sides, but we have chosen to go all in with our long-term friends and allies, China and Turkey.

 

[Falcon29]

So here is the thing, Wahabbism is insulting and Gulf Arabs find the designation offensive as they refer to themselves as Hanbalis, based on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal RA mazhab of Sunni Islam.

Salafis are an altogether different thing because they generally reject 4 imams of Sunni Islam and have their own scholars.

Yes, many of the two former groups refer to Shias as Rafidhi (rejectors,) which is offensive and should be banned on this forum. I agree. However not all Gulf Arabs do, you would be surprised.

There are various ethnic, racial, historic rivalries at play here, beyond just religion.

I have also seen a disturbing trend among Shia leaders and Iranian/Assad rhetoric against Sunnis and Salafis as takfiris (ones who declare others kaffir.) This term also should be banned from the forum.

If we are going to have political differences, please keep religion out of it please. We are all Muslims: Sunni, Salafis, Shias. Our elders (Sunni, Shia) had respect and learned from each other. They kept theological disputes in the proper place, which were with esteemed scholars who could discuss with each other with knowledge and find commonalities (not differences.)



The Sunni Islamic world accepts Shias as an equal part of the Muslim world. This is not up for question. Even with all the rhetoric, you would be surprised how many Arab (even Gulf ones) scholars hold on to this view.

No one can ban Shias from Hajj, simply because Sunnis would not allow it. There are some differences, but not anything which Shias do takes them out of Islam (unlike say Ahmadiyyas, Nation of Islam, etc.)



Yes, I agree that their policies are contemptible, but Iran is not innocent either. Unfortunately the hate has become too much on both sides and needs to be reined in.



I was under the impression that you were Pakistani, but here you are so bothered by what an Arab user is saying about Iranian leaders and the Iranian government.

I do not agree with some of the things brother @Falcon29 had said in the past, but he has been banned for those remarks and did his time.

If we silence the last prominent Arab voice on this forum, it would be a tremendous injustice. The Arab view will be anti-Iranian, and sometimes anti-Turkish too, but we cannot silence the viewpoints of those we disagree with.

That is the conversation I had with the respectable Iranian brother above, we all need to take a step back and leave the religious debates to scholars.

I would request brother @Falcon29 to make extra effort to try to even avoid using the word Shia, if at all possible, as Pakistanis are sensitive to our demographic weakness to sectarianism.

I think this is why PDF bans religious discussions mainly.

May Allah swt bless you all.

I will heed your advice, brother, may God bless you.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I will heed your advice, brother, may God bless you.

Thanks brother. You have to understand that sectarianism is still a touchy subject in Pakistan.

It comes up from time to time in the Pakistani section, so I will tag you when we discuss it.

 

[SalarHaqq]

No, it is not 'assigning' , it's simply the truth.

Not sure if you realize how you at times give way to a slight tendency for the outlandish. I'm putting this to you with no ill will whatsoever and in the most sincere manner possible. Try to calm down for a second, inhale and exhale deeply and ponder this whole discussion objectively.

Don't care how many of you guys false flag or it try to make it appear otherwise, I can easily tell your background. Your twelver religious motivation is relevant, and we need to address to it so you stop causing fitnah and hatred against Muslims in ME region on religious/sectarian basis. Also to not blindly support all of Iranian regime doings out of religious motives.

Listen Falcon29, the user currently going by the handle Sineva, whom you baselessly called "Persian nationalist" is well known to those who follow Iranian military developments on these internet forums. Go and ask them. We all know everything points to him being truthful when he claims to be of a Kiwi of European descent with socialist leanings. From his requesting for translations of Persian-language documents to the near total absence of comments on Iranian history or culture (he likes to focus on contemporary military, geopolitical and technoligical aspects), to his general "style", his posting behaviour leaves little doubt as to his non-Iranian origins. One can try and dissimulate one's origins as best as one can but over the course of more than a decade, one will tend to give it away at least on one occasion.

But Sineva has never posted anything suggesting he is Iranian. His opinion on West Asian geopolitical affairs is totally irrelevant to the equation. I can personally introduce you to dozens of non-Iranians, including non-Muslims, be they South American or North, East, South and West European, African or East Asian who are supportive of Iran and pretty engaged on that path, each for their own reasons. Whether you like it or not, it's still a fact of life and therefore, someone expressing pro-Iranian views does not necessarily imply they are Iranian. You will just need to live with that, even if I understand it is hard for you to imagine let alone accept.

When you mention "support for all of the Iranian regime's doings", you are confusing your opinion for a fact and blindly postulate everyone must agree with you or else. Just because you believe Iran to be the source of all evil in the world, it doesn't imply everobody else must adhere to your line of thinking, nor that there can't be individuals in this world from every imaginable horizon who, as you put it, "support all of the Iranian regime's doings". Your argument here is entirely deprived of substance.

And then, what "religious background" or "motivations" are you talking about with regards to Sineva? This one really made me chuckle, again no offense intended. If you knew the first thing about that user, you'r realize he does not appear to be interested in religious discussions at all, in fact I can say with certainty he never made any comment regarding religion. His socialist leanings lead me to believe that might perhaps not even be his cup of tea at all. So once more, you are wide off the mark with your wild assumptions.

He's Iranian actually.

He's a Kiwi with European roots and socialist anti-imperialist leanings, hence his support for Iranian policy which he, contrary to you, believes to be anti-imperial - as said, not everyone must absolutely agree with your views nor can you hope to enforce them on everyone. Try to understand that, it will greatly help you in the future.

Quite honestly, your discernment skills in this department are poor. But I'm confident that as you open up your mind and come to recognize the complexity of the world, as well as the diversity of opinions present therein, you'll improve in that discipline as well.

Yep, he's an Indian Shia who believes he has ethnic Persian roots.

Nope, he is most probably a non-Muslim Indian, as he himself stated. And he never made any mention of Persian ethnicity. Nor do his comments suggest anything along those lines. Your outlandish attributions are truly worrisome.

And he peddles same Iranian propaganda we see all the time. How an atheist and non-Muslim going to claim Iran is the most Islamic Muslim nation and fights for Islam/justice and what not?

Because that is what he thinks. You know Falcon29, people have a right to their opinion, no matter their national or religious backgrounds. I mean, have you bothered to look around you? Did you seriously never come accross people commenting and holding strong convictions about countries or events unfolding in areas other than their own? Particularly in this day and age of so-called globalization... Open your eyes, your political bias is making you blind to obvious realities.

Why is non-Muslim Indian Hindu trying to push Iranian regime narrative in ME section?

One could literally think of thousands of reasons why mazeto is holding the views he holds, views which you consider to be nothing more than an "Iranian regime narrative", but which he considers to correspond to the truth, and he is perfectly entitled to do so.

If you still don't know why he thinks the way he does despite having conducted a reasonably comprehensive exchange with him, in which he substantiated his viewpoint at length, then I would suggest to pay better attention to what it is you are reading next time. You are certainly free to disagree with what he said if you so wish, but to claim he did not elaborate his viewpoint in his own words represents sheer denial of reality.

You think we are all stupid? Some people are too polite and naive but I have zero tolerance for you guys and your propaganda lies.

Who is "we"?

As for your tolerance issues, challenging opposing opinions you are certainly entitled to. Breaking forum rules (such as when you excommunicate Muslims or bully people about their supposed confessional or ethnic backgrounds, which you prove rather poor at guessing) you can but then be sure someone is going to report your infractions. Don't you think you were banned often enough to realize that?

It's not complicated, much of the twelver ideology is to paint Muslims wars with Persia as illegitimate and claim Prophet and his cousins were against of it.

There is debate among Ithna Ashari scholars on all these topics. And no, these issues are definitely not central to Shia beliefs. They are strictly historical topics, not questions of theology. As such, by definition they cannot form the core Shia Muslim beliefs, since Shia Islam is not a school of historians but a denominational branch of the Islamic religion.

All this fixation on ancient Persian empire shows loyalty to Persian nationalism and is their sole motivator in whole twelver ideology.

There is no "fixation" whatsoever on the ancient Persian empire among Shia scholars. I am frankly at a loss as to where you are getting this idea from. This begs the question how much time you spent studying major Shia primary sources (not cherry picked random stuff encountered on the internet but directly the main consensual works of Shia Islamic jurisprudence)? How many lectures from Shia scholars did you listen to? There is a myriad of Arabic and English language media at the disposal of those interested. Also never forget to verify what the relation of these sources and scholars to the Islamic Republic of Iran is. As said, these days the media landscape is bristling with British-funded Shia scholars (sometimes imposters) from the Shirazi and Hojjatieh clans who oppose the Islamic Republic, sometimes even insulting its Supreme Leader in the worst ways possible, while at the same time trying to spread anti-Sunni sectarianism and blaming the Iran for its Sunni-friendly outlook (however, even they are not fixated on pre-Islamic Iran at all, which should tell you how incorrect your assessments about Shia scholarship are).

You on the other hand are completely fixated on Iran. If I have the time, I will conduct a tally of your posts focusing on Iran vs other posts you made over the last, say, 2 or 3 months. I am certain upwards of 90% of your contributions here were dedicated to demonizing Iran.

You might counter that I too tend to focus on one subject, zionism to be precise, and I will gladly confirm: yes, I do consider zionism - not Iran nor any other Muslim power or current, as the major, overarching threat not just to Muslims (whether Sunni or Shia) but to non-Muslims as well as to ordinary Jews themselves. I believe a quick look at who wields more power at the global scale will go a long way in highlighting whose hierarchy of threats is the more realistic one.

I do not believe such people as who actively try to suggest those wars were illegtimate and who claim Persian will be army of Mahdi and Mahdi will be of Persian descent himself and so on. Huge fixation on Persia. When Islam came down as a religion by God to inform us he created us to worship up and to submit to him.

Shia beliefs as to who Imam Mahdi is and whom he descends from are very clear: he is considered by Shia Muslims as being the direct descendant of the Prophet's (saaws) Ahlulbayt. There is no discussion about his identity, since Shia believe he went into occultation, where he has been stayiing for hundreds of years now and is going to return when the time is ripe. So your suggestion is pretty strange and denotes a lack of understanding with regards to basic concepts of Shia Islam. I would suggest to do the required effort and read a valid basic introduction to Shia beliefs from Shia sources themselves to form an unbiased and sufficiently informed opinion.

People who bring Persian agenda into Islam to me are missing point of Islam and have political/cultural motives that are nothing to do with Islam.

Let's go back to where this discussion started: you claimed the Iranian leadership considers that the Prophet of Islam (saaws) did not order to battle against the Persian empire and then, based on this, you concluded that therefore, Iranian leaders must be "opposed" to the Prophet (saaws), from which you inferred they are "atheists or Zoroastrians".

To this I reply:

1) Prove that the Iranian leadership is of the opinion the Prophet (saaws) had unfavorable views about fighting the Persian empire.

2) Prove the Prophet (saaws) held such views. If the Persian empire did not declare war on Muslims in Arabia, are you saying the Prophet (saaws) was favorable to offensive wars of conquest and to expansion of the realm of Islam by the sword? I hope you realize this view in and by itself would be considered controversial by many a scholar, Sunni and Shia alike.

If however Persia was the one which attacked Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saaws), provide evidence.

3) So what? How can one's opinion on this purely historical question, which is not theological in nature, make one a non-Muslim? Why must you, in order not to be suspected of "placing Persian civilization above God", necessarily be of the opinion that the Prophet (saaws) ordered Muslims to fight the Persian empire? A person can choose to think the Prophet did not issue this particular order and yet that person can continue to place God above any nation, be it the Persian or the Arab one. Understand these two ideas are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what you seem to believe.

So very simple I can't be sure Iranian supreme leader is Muslim until he gives me his honest opinion of Muslim defensive war against Persia. If he opposes it and claims the Sahaba are usurpers and Ali opposed this and that then he is doing so out of loyalty to his ethnic/national background and no other reason.

No, it would not be necessarily out of loyalty to ethnic or national affiliations.

Besides, you just admitted you do not even know what the Supreme Leader's take on the question is. Yet, you branded him an "atheist".

Despite the fact that I consider your monolithic, maniacal anti-Iran rants as pretty appalling, I would not wish you to commit any sort of a grave sin that might have unwanted consequences. You state you are God-fearing person, in that case remember how serious the issue of takfir is and when in doubt, refrain from excommunicating he who professes faith in Allah subhaanaa wa taalaa and his Prophet saws. I would suggest you do tawba. This is out of genuine concern, not in order to lecture you in any way.

I know you guys report all my posts for exposing you but instead you should reset yourself and ask yourself what you believe in and why. Since it seems your whole preaching on this forum is to praise Iran and make them out to be God's pious servants. There's nothing about God for you. That's not good.

Well, you are resorting to prejudice again. You do realize religious discussions are not allowed as per forum rules? I am totally against placing one's nation above God, if that is what worries you. Yes, if God orders me to consider Iran or Pakistan for that matter an enemy, I will. However He did not ask me to so far. And when it comes to historical issues, they are subject to discussion insofar as they do not touch upon core beliefs of Islam. And I'm sorry to say, but enmity towards Iran or outright prohibition to be supportive of certain Iranian policies when one understands and views them the way I do, is not a core belief of Islam. At least did I not come accross a credible source stating otherwise.

You are previous user Aspen too btw.

No, I am not user Aspen by the way.

@Aspen

As said, your skills are limited when it comes identifying double/previous accounts.

You see a user with a Pakistani flag and another flag from some western country, you notice vague similarity of political outlook, comparable level of mastery of the English language (although everything else about our writing styles is pretty much different) and there you go concluding "that's him! I knew it!". This is way too approximative, you need to refine your .

Also, have you noticed how you never provide an in-depth justification for these allegations you make? All you base yourself on are "is he pro Iranian", "what flags does he use", "how well does he seem to speak English". That's it. Well, take it from someone who's not new to this sort of guessing game: your criteria are insufficient. Way to meager.

I told you before and I tell you now again, you not gonna gain anything for yourself by doing this propaganda for Iranian regime. It's like form of self harm. I would understand if you try to convince people to follow God and return to him but anything else makes no sense.

You are wrong. I'll try to keep it short: apart from the fact that I am not, in my own view, writing up "propaganda" but rather am I posting what I sincerely believe to be the case, my conviction stems from years of research on the oligarchic power I consider to be the biggest threat facing mankind. Also, I believe Iran, despite its flaws, is standing up to that oligarchic global power. You have amply expressed your view according to which this isn't the case, not only that, but in fact you clearly show how you consider Iran itself to be the biggest threat facing Muslims, not international zionism and its executive arm (the US empire), not the bloodsucking bankster and corporate mafia, not the masonic web of secret societies. Well, it's your right to believe in whatever you like, but you can't force me nor anyone else to agree with you, because my reason and my knowledge tells me something else. I see pure, luciferian evil in the global oligarchy. Not in Iran. I also see a struggle for life and death between the same oligarchy and the revolutionary core of the Iranian establishment (not Iranian liberals) and don't believe all the obvious hostility to be mere hogwash or "for show" as you claim.

 

[Falcon29]

@SalarHaqq

You wasted your time, I already changed my mind about Islamic Iran after reading a moving and inspirational post by an Iranian brother.

Why dont you say wat u do Mr. Takfiri Sympathiser? No wonder u reside in america, no wonder where ur loyalty lies. Your Oily arab nation does not have the courage or the moral authority to stand up to the DEVIL. Your Khalifas masters are in Tel Aviv and Washington. What have you ever done for the muslim community other than to conspire with the Israeli/Americans to destroy muslim communities? You conspired with the enemy and destroyed Syria by sending illiterate Sand Scums into syria. All you ever did since your entire existence was to do SHAJDAH (Prostration) to the devil and suck its toe nails. You and your khalifas have no faith in god nor do they have any Testacles. all you did was conspire with the devil to destroy Islamic communities. One day be it today or tomorrow we will avenge all the poor innocent souls who died cuz of ur Oily Khalifas and their Treachery.

I was moved by this and changed my mind on Islamic Iran.

 

[Xerxes22]

@SalarHaqq

You wasted your time, I already changed my mind about Islamic Iran after reading a moving and inspirational post by an Iranian brother.



I was moved by this and changed my mind on Islamic Iran.

You will never change your mind. All you ever do is come out here and propagate on the zio axis's behalf. I can see by the flags where your allegiance is , so why dont u man up and admit it.

 

[Falcon29]

You will never change your mind. All you ever do is come out here and propagate on the zio axis's behalf. I can see by the flags where your allegiance is , so why dont u man up and admit it.

Your supreme leader sucks toe nails of the devil and does sajdah for him.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Not sure if you realize how you at times give way to a slight tendency for the outlandish. I'm putting this to you with no ill will whatsoever and in the most sincere manner possible. Try to calm down for a second, inhale and exhale deeply and ponder this whole discussion objectively.



Listen Falcon29, the user currently going by the handle Sineva, whom you baselessly called "Persian nationalist" is well known to those who follow Iranian military developments. Go and ask them. We all know everything points to him being truthful when he claims to be of a Kiwi of European descent with socialist leanings. From his requesting for translations of Persian-language documents to the near total absence of comments on Iranian history or culture (he likes to focus on contemporary military, geopolitical and technoligical aspects), to his general "style", his posting behaviour leaves little doubt as to his non-Iranian origins. One can try and dissimulate one's origins as best as one can but over the course of more than a decade, one will tend to give it away at least on one occasion.

But Sineva has never posted anything suggesting he is Iranian. His opinion on West Asian geopolitical affairs is totally irrelevant to the equation. I can personally introduce you to dozens of non-Iranians, including non-Muslims, be they South American or North, East, South and West European, African or East Asian who are supportive of Iran and pretty engaged on that path, each for their own reasons. Whether you like it or not, it's still a fact of life and therefore, someone expressing pro-Iranian views does not necessarily imply they are Iranian. You will just need to live with that, even if I understand it is hard for you to imagine let alone accept.

When you mention "support for all of the Iranian regime's doings", you are confusing your opinion for a fact and blindly postulate everyone must agree with you or else. Just because you believe Iran to be the source of all evil in the world, it doesn't imply everobody else must adhere to your line of thinking, nor that there can't be individuals in this world from every imaginable horizon who, as you put it, "support all of the Iranian regime's doings". Your argument here is entirely deprived of substance.

And then, what "religious background" or "motivations" are you talking about with regards to Sineva? This one really made me chuckle, again no offense intended. If you knew the first thing about that user, you'r realize he does not appear to be interested in religious discussions at all, in fact I can say with certainty he never made any comment regarding religion. His socialist leanings lead me to believe that might perhaps not even be his cup of tea at all. So once more, you are wide off the mark with your wild assumptions.



He's a Kiwi with European roots and socialist anti-imperialist leanings, hence his support for Iranian policy which he, contrary to you, believes to be anti-imperial - as said, not everyone must absolutely agree with your views nor can you hope to enforce them on everyone. Try to understand that, it will greatly help you in the future.

Quite honestly, your discernment skills in this department are poor. But I'm confident that as you open up your mind and come to recognize the complexity of the world, as well as the diversity of opinions present therein, you'll improve in that discipline as well.



Nope, he is most probably a non-Muslim Indian, as he himself stated. And he never made any mention of Persian ethnicity. Nor do his comments suggest anything along those lines. Your outlandish attributions are truly worrisome.



Because that is what he thinks. You know Falcon29, people have a right to their opinion, no matter their national or religious backgrounds. I mean, have you bothered to look around you? Did you seriously never come accross people commenting and holding strong convictions about countries or events unfolding in areas other than their own? Particularly in this day and age of so-called globalization... Open your eyes, your political bias is making you blind to obvious realities.



One could literally think of thousands of reasons why mazeto is holding the views he holds, views which you consider to be nothing more than an "Iranian regime narrative", but which he considers to correspond to the truth, and he is perfectly entitled to do so.

If you still don't know why he thinks the way he does despite having conducted a reasonably comprehensive exchange with him, in which he substantiated his viewpoint at length, then I would suggest to pay better attention to what it is you are reading next time. You are certainly free to disagree with what he said if you so wish, but to claim he did not elaborate his viewpoint in his own words represents sheer denial of reality.



Who is "we"?

As for your tolerance issues, challenging opposing opinions you are certainly entitled to. Breaking forum rules (such as when you excommunicate Muslims or bully people about their supposed confessional or ethnic backgrounds, which you prove rather poor at guessing) you can but then be sure someone is going to report your infractions. Don't you think you were banned often enough to realize that?



There is debate among Ithna Ashari scholars on all these topics. And no, these issues are definitely not central to Shia beliefs. They are strictly historical topics, not questions of theology. As such, by definition they cannot form the core Shia Muslim beliefs, since Shia Islam is not a school of historians but a denominational branch of the Islamic religion.



There is no "fixation" whatsoever on the ancient Persian empire among Shia scholars. I am frankly at a loss as to where you are getting this idea from. This begs the question how much time you spent studying major Shia primary sources (not cherry picked random stuff encountered on the internet but directly the main consensual works of Shia Islamic jurisprudence)? How many lectures from Shia scholars did you listen to? There is a myriad of Arabic and English language media at the disposal of those interested. Also never forget to verify what the relation of these sources and scholars to the Islamic Republic of Iran is. As said, these days the media landscape is bristling with British-funded Shia scholars (sometimes imposters) from the Shirazi and Hojjatieh clans who oppose the Islamic Republic, sometimes even insulting its Supreme Leader in the worst ways possible, while at the same time trying to spread anti-Sunni sectarianism and blaming the Iran for its Sunni-friendly outlook (however, even they are not fixated on pre-Islamic Iran at all, which should tell you how incorrect your assessments about Shia scholarship are).

You on the other hand are completely fixated on Iran. If I have the time, I will conduct a tally of your posts focusing on Iran vs other posts you made over the last, say, 2 or 3 months. I am certain upwards of 90% of your contributions here were dedicated to demonizing Iran.

You might counter that I too tend to focus on one subject, zionism to be precise, and I will gladly confirm: yes, I do consider zionism - not Iran nor any other Muslim power or current, as the major, overarching threat not just to Muslims (whether Sunni or Shia) but to non-Muslims as well as to ordinary Jews themselves. I believe a quick look at who wields more power at the global scale will go a long way in highlighting whose hierarchy of threats is the more realistic one.



Shia beliefs as to who Imam Mahdi is and whom he descends from are very clear: he is considered by Shia Muslims as being the direct descendant of the Prophet's (saaws) Ahlulbayt. There is no discussion about his identity, since Shia believe he went into occultation, where he has been stayiing for hundreds of years now and is going to return when the time is ripe. So your suggestion is pretty strange and denotes a lack of understanding with regards to basic concepts of Shia Islam. I would suggest to do the required effort and read a valid basic introduction to Shia beliefs from Shia sources themselves to form an unbiased and sufficiently informed opinion.



Let's go back to where this discussion started: you claimed the Iranian leadership considers that the Prophet of Islam (saaws) did not order to battle against the Persian empire and then, based on this, you concluded that therefore, Iranian leaders must be "opposed" to the Prophet (saaws), from which you inferred they are "atheists or Zoroastrians".

To this I reply:

1) Prove that the Iranian leadership is of the opinion the Prophet (saaws) had unfavorable views about fighting the Persian empire.

2) Prove the Prophet (saaws) held such views. If the Persian empire did not declare war on Muslims in Arabia, are you saying the Prophet (saaws) was favorable to offensive wars of conquest and to expansion of the realm of Islam by the sword? I hope you realize this view in and by itself would be considered controversial by many a scholar, Sunni and Shia alike.

If however Persia was the one which attacked Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saaws), provide evidence.

3) So what? How can one's opinion on this purely historical question, which is not theological in nature, make one a non-Muslim? Why must you, in order not to be suspected of "placing Persian civilization above God", necessarily be of the opinion that the Prophet (saaws) ordered Muslims to fight the Persian empire? A person can choose to think the Prophet did not issue this particular order and yet that person can continue to place God above any nation, be it the Persian or the Arab one. Understand these two ideas are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what you seem to believe.



No, it would not be necessarily out of loyalty to ethnic or national affiliations.

Besides, you just admitted you do not even know what the Supreme Leader's take on the question is. Yet, you branded him an "atheist".

Despite the fact that I consider your monolithic, maniacal anti-Iran rants as pretty appalling, I would not wish you to commit any sort of a grave sin that might have unwanted consequences. You state you are God-fearing person, in that case remember how serious the issue of takfir is and when in doubt, refrain from excommunicating he who professes faith in Allah subhaanaa wa taalaa and his Prophet saws. I would suggest you do tawba. This is out of genuine concern, not in order to lecture you in any way.




Well, you are resorting to prejudice again. You do realize religious discussions are not allowed as per forum rules? I am totally against placing one's nation above God, if that is what worries you. Yes, if God orders me to consider Iran or Pakistan for that matter an enemy, I will. However He did not ask me to so far. And when it comes to historical issues, they are subject to discussion insofar as they do not touch upon core beliefs of Islam. And I'm sorry to say, but enmity towards Iran or outright prohibition to be supportive of certain Iranian policies when one understands and views them the way I do, is not a core belief of Islam. At least did I not come accross a credible source stating otherwise.



No, I am not user Aspen by the way.

@Aspen

As said, your skills are limited when it comes identifying double/previous accounts.

You see a user with a Pakistani flag and another flag from some western country, you notice vague similarity of political outlook, comparable level of mastery of the English language (although everything else about our writing styles is pretty much different) and there you go concluding "that's him! I knew it!". This is way too approximative, you need to refine your .

Also, have you noticed how you never provide an in-depth justification for these allegations you make? All you base yourself on are "is he pro Iranian", "what flags does he use", "how well does he seem to speak English". That's it. Well, take it from someone who's not new to this sort of guessing game: your criteria are insufficient. Wa



I

Thanks for the post. I especially enjoyed your analysis on the dynamics of Shiaism in Iran.


It definitely clears up a few things and may explain why that Sineva ID is so anti-Pakistani, and specifically seems to go out of his way to make insulting remarks targetting Pakistanis.

However, he could still be Iranian, I don't really have enough knowledge to make either claim.

As for the Hindu furthering Iranian interests, well this is a common thing for them. They have convinced themselves that they can promote Sunni and Shia civil war by taking sides of Shias, but they still oppress Indian Muslim and Kashmiri Shias. They live in an alternate reality.

Out of all pro-Iranian members, we have some real strange ones here on PDF. Alt-right, Communist, pro-Russian, Orthodox, Arabist (Syrian-Iraq) propaganda lives on portraying the Sunni Muslim majority as evil, wicked, and dangerous people, for which Iran is a convenient ally, due to Shia identity.

Check this list of PDF members we have who are not Iranians, but are more militantly pro-Iranian than Iranians themselves.

One Nigerian Christian Islamophobe, One Republican Alt-right diaspora Latino-Pakistani hybrid, an Indian Hindu radical, and now a European Communist from NZ.