Soleimani StatuteTorched by Protesters

[IceCold]

Despite washingtons repeated threats that a direct Iranian attack would be a declaration of war. Washington quietly backed down

Wasnt this something on the lines of if American lives are lost, it will be war after which Iranians quietly told the US through a third country about missile strikes which the Americans were already monitoring and all US soldiers were either safely evacuated or gone in shelters before Iranian missiles begin striking.
Even then Iran got so much paranoid that you downed a civilian aircraft killing all on board fearing a US retaliation. Are you sure it's the US that backed down quietly?
Even though I do give Iran credit for actually going ahead with the so-called strike however keeping the bravado aside they killed your top general in broad daylight, a revenge would be killing a US top general/diplomat of equal rank somewhere/anywhere. Till that time you cannot term the above as revenge for killing Gen Soleminai.

 

[Menace2Society]

Islam prohibits drawing images and erecting statues of humans. The matter pertains as much to fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as ‘aqidah (Islamic belief system). There are many authentic hadiths (traditions) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that testify to this.

According to those hadiths, the image makers are cursed; they are called some of the most evil creation; they will be most severely punished on the Day of Judgment; they will be punished until they breathe life into their “creations”, but they will never be able to do that; and the angels do not enter houses in which there are statues (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).

That's the interpretation by scholars. In the Quran it states making imitations of Allah is forbidden which is referring to idolatry, not images or statues.

The rest is an elaboration. So in the example a Muslim country wants to have statues of its historical figures is totally fine.

 

[peagle]

Islamic republic of Pakistan
Although not a theocracy per se but still an islamic republic where laws get checked by an Islamic court who can struck down laws passed by Parliament if they're found to be in contradiction to Islamic values

For example law to chemically castrate rapists passed by Parliament was struck down as it was considered unislamic and cruel, another example land reforms (afaik I might be wrong or if I read correctly) (something like in east Asia) was struck down by islamic courts
As it was unislamic to take someone's land from them, even if they're rich and own lots of land it doesn't matter

So it's an islamic republic where islamic jurisprudence gets a "veto" right to struck down parliamentary laws if considered unislamic in nature
Not an active governance based on Islam like in a theocracy (something what islamists want) but more of a check and balance where parliament cannot pass laws in contradiction to islamic laws

Federal Shariat Court - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm aware of all that, I was rather hoping you would have a point.
With respect, what's your point?

 

[sammuel]

That's the interpretation by scholars. In the Quran it states making imitations of Allah is forbidden which is referring to idolatry, not images or statues.

The rest is an elaboration. So in the example a Muslim country wants to have statues of its historical figures is totally fine.

Indeed , the source for this is that in the past people where idol worshipers , the scarified and worshiped the statutes they made.

Today when a dictatorship erects a statute ,the purpose is very different. It is not to commemorate some great poet or historical figure.

It is simply to demonstrate to regime control over people and a symbol of the regime power and dominance.

~

 

[Dariush the Great]

Thread is filled with Zionists and ISIS sympathizers.

 

[zartosht]

Wasnt this something on the lines of if American lives are lost, it will be war after which Iranians quietly told the US through a third country about missile strikes which the Americans were already monitoring and all US soldiers were either safely evacuated or gone in shelters before Iranian missiles begin striking.
Even then Iran got so much paranoid that you downed a civilian aircraft killing all on board fearing a US retaliation. Are you sure it's the US that backed down quietly?
Even though I do give Iran credit for actually going ahead with the so-called strike however keeping the bravado aside they killed your top general in broad daylight, a revenge would be killing a US top general/diplomat of equal rank somewhere/anywhere. Till that time you cannot term the above as revenge for killing Gen Soleminai.

well go look for trump/pompeo statements. there was nothing specific but a general warning of any Iranian attack would be met with overwhelming american response. With Iranian officers publicly responding that any american retaliation would equal an all out war. hundreds of american targets had been identified, and within literally minutes IRan would have fired hundreds of pinpoint missiles on american bases and assets. causing damage the US hasnt seen since ww2. Thousands of american casualties /carcasses would literally pile up on the first day.

if Iran didnt give prior warning the american losses would have been catastrophic, with possibly hundreds of dead. and would have forced an american response that would have guaranteed a war. this was a scenario neither side wanted. War is not a joke. An american Iran all out war would absolutely anahilate the entire middle east.

The fact that the Iranian military directly opened fire on the US military in peace time. And in a pre-annuonced way to boot. just shows you how much US power has declined/Iranian power has increased since just the W Bush era..

right up to the W Bush era it would be unthinkable for a country to directly strike the US military. The last time somebody did that (Japan), it was an all out world war with nukes getting popped. that is an enormous blow to american prestige.

its usually the US army acting as world policeman, and handing out punitive strikes as punishment. It was the first time since ww2 they had been on the recieving end of a direct strike by another nations military in peace time. this would have been unthinkable during the W Bush era. Or even anybody before him. for that matter.

as a sidenote, you should look at the zionist response as well. All their hot air, and before a single Iranian missile had been fired they put their armed forces on alert, and made public statements that the soleimani killing has nothing to do with Israel, and its between Iran and the US. begging Iran essentially to not drag Israel into the war that would mean the guaranteed destruction of Haifa/tel aviv + every vital infastracture in the artificial "state".

That should tell you what the professionals thought of IRans missile strike.

 

[IceCold]

well go look for trump/pompeo statements. there was nothing specific but a general warning of any Iranian attack would be met with overwhelming american response. With Iranian officers publicly responding that any american retaliation would equal an all out war. hundreds of american targets had been identified, and within literally minutes IRan would have fired hundreds of pinpoint missiles on american bases and assets. causing damage the US hasnt seen since ww2. Thousands of american casualties /carcasses would literally pile up on the first day.

if Iran didnt give prior warning the american losses would have been catastrophic, with possibly hundreds of dead. and would have forced an american response that would have guaranteed a war. this was a scenario neither side wanted. War is not a joke. An american Iran all out war would absolutely anahilate the entire middle east.

The fact that the Iranian military directly opened fire on the US military in peace time. And in a pre-annuonced way to boot. just shows you how much US power has declined/Iranian power has increased since just the W Bush era..

right up to the W Bush era it would be unthinkable for a country to directly strike the US military. The last time somebody did that (Japan), it was an all out world war with nukes getting popped. that is an enormous blow to american prestige.

its usually the US army acting as world policeman, and handing out punitive strikes as punishment. It was the first time since ww2 they had been on the recieving end of a direct strike by another nations military in peace time. this would have been unthinkable during the W Bush era. Or even anybody before him. for that matter.

as a sidenote, you should look at the zionist response as well. All their hot air, and before a single Iranian missile had been fired they put their armed forces on alert, and made public statements that the soleimani killing has nothing to do with Israel, and its between Iran and the US. begging Iran essentially to not drag Israel into the war that would mean the guaranteed destruction of Haifa/tel aviv + every vital infastracture in the artificial "state".

That should tell you what the professionals thought of IRans missile strike.

I don't agree with your above assessment especially the bold part since what the US did was an act of war and rather boldly. Yes, you did react and hit US bases but can I be blunt and say that this was rather done in agreement with the US.
Iranian leaders wanted to quell public anger who wanted blood, there was no way for Iran to just sit and do nothing. On the other hand Iran also knew that its options are rather limited and it did not want an all-out war with the yanks as you pointed out.
Hence a tacit understanding was reached where Iran was either told that you can hit the base in Iraq or perhaps Iran said that they will hit this base and the Americans agreed and evacuated accordingly.
Either way at the end of the day Iranians lost a capable general, what did the yanks lose? A bit of prestige!

 

[Maula Jatt]

I'm aware of all that, I was rather hoping you would have a point.
With respect, what's your point?

We are not a secular country like turkey and Indonesia like you're saying
We are islamic republic, like Iran but just ruled differently
Our ethos are similar

 

[peagle]

We are not a secular country like turkey and Indonesia like you're saying
We are islamic republic, like Iran but just ruled differently
Our ethos are similar

Clearly you did not read my post clearly, because I made none of those claims. I'm shocked that you misunderstood so much.

Where did I say Pakistan was a secular country?
I hope you know what a theocracy is, that term certainly does not apply to Pakistan, but it does to Iran.

Having Islamic republic in the title does not mean you have an Islamic system of governance, I think you're confused. The correct understanding is important, otherwise it is very easy to arrive at wrong conclusions.

Pakistan is not an Islamic state with an Islamic system of governance. It has Islam as an official religion, the constitution declares that Islam is to be the guiding principle, but it does not mean that Pakistan has an Islamic system of governance.
There is a massive different between those two concepts, massive difference.

So please next time, before you reply, I would request that you understand what I said before replying. Or just ask for clarity.