You have a right to criticize, I respect that.
Truth speaks for itself. What I said is truth, numbers could be off.
Why Iran and the chief foreign provocateur did not help Saddam during two gulf wars?
Why iran and qasem Soleimani staunchly helped Butcher Bashar against majority population? If they had love of Islam they could have persuaded bashar to come with reconciliation. But, No, they stood with Bashar and ended up massacring half a million Sunni Muslims. Even Many EU countries and Canada gave refuge to syrians after these atrocities.
Allah says,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا
O you who have accepted and have regard for Allah, when you speak, say right, He will right your deeds and forgive your sins.
I fully know sectarianism but in this day and age misinformation and disinformation are big deception and truth should come out without fomenting hatred.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ
Those who have made divisions in their religion and become parties, thou art not of them.
Wrong thing is to make parties on the basis of the religious differences and then act according to these differences.
I dont consider myself among them and Allah says, You, O' Messenger has nothing to do with these kind of people.
Sorry for long reply.
Oh, the irony!
You quote the Qur'an's admonition against divisions in the
deen, and acknowledge the role of mis/disinformation - yet you felt it appropriate to start a thread based on the misinformation that was peddled by the Zionists to kickstart the Syrian war, as well as highlighting the
purely sectarian aspects of Gen Soleimani's vastly successful campaigns, which significantly curtailed Zionist ambitions in the region.
Perhaps you should learn to look at the bigger picture. The real villains in this game are the Zionists who are using the timeless tactic of Divide-and-Rule to keep the
ummah of Muhammad (صَلَّىٰ ٱللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ) divided and ineffective as an opposition. The tactic relies heavily on eliciting a knee-jerk emotional response, and has clearly worked very well going by some of the posts on this forum.
Falling for this tactic is equivalent to becoming part of the onslaught upon Islam in this day and age. Let that sink in for a minute. You will be answerable to Allah for all of your actions, including the fact that you launched this thread at a time when the only thing that will defeat the Zionists is Shia/Sunni unity.
Except that Zia was essentially appointed, used, abused and killed by US handlers.
Soleimani was actively undermining US regional objectives for over a decade.
Don't know about the appointed bit (I do recall reading Zia's own explanation for the coup), but it should be pointed out that Zia had his own plans for Afghanistan and the Islamic bloc in place at that time, that would have, had they succeeded following the Soviet withdrawal, ended any possibility of a non-Muslim occupation of that country for decades at least. Recall how Junejo was dismissed soon after the Swiss meeting that ended the Soviet-Afghan crisis, primarily because he gave away Pakistan's bargaining position that Zia had so carefully engineered.
So yes, there are indeed similarities between the Zionists taking out Zia and Soleimani. The message to the Muslim world is clear: don't get ideas above your station, or else we will kill your leaders.
What is starkly different though, is the post-assassination response of the two countries. Pakistan essentially folded after Zia, and happily allowed their choice of successor to take control. Iran, in contrast, shows no such signs (so far at least) of giving up. If anything, the chatter in the Zionist media is all about
how the revenge operation will unfold, not
when.
Emotional kids on this forum - you know, the "Iran=Kulbushan=Soleimani=Shia Terror" types - would do well to ponder on that, and decide which
qawm has shown more
ghairat.
