Azadkashmir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 11,106
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
mods are not cleaning thread, come on wakeup we just had investment for cpec from china. i am sure thier is enough wages paid, overtime too.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
>ancient Semitic culture
Semites have zero culture to begin with, how could we manage to steal something that doesn't exist?
>he was an invented person
Wew lad, seems all those lizards you ate must be clogging your pea-sized brain. There are far more historical sources to prove Zoroaster existed than there are sources to prove that pedo "prophet" of yours ever existed outside of your sun-burnt Ar*b "mind".
>This is also why Tajiks (where most of the so-called "Iranian" Islamic scientists were from) are not closely related to Iranians genetically
Yes, because they obviously mixed with Turkics, dumbass.
Speaking of genetics, the average modern Saudi "Arab" has like 30% negroid admixture, so if anything, you creatures can't even claim Islamic civilization for yourself
Furthermore, Tajiks are as genetically far away from us as Iraqis or Lebanese or Morrocans are from Saudis, if you creatures can claim all their achievements as "Arab" "history" then we can claim Tajiks as our own too.
Speaking of which, can anyone here remind me, how many Muslim or Arab scientists or philosophers came from the Arabian Peninsula?
Now go back to drinking camel piss and raping 3 year olds, my "Arab" friend.
Most Iranians do not as most of the are Muslim. Correct. However there is a large, or at least a very local, minority of Iranians (home and abroad) who are vehemently anti-Islam. Such rhetoric is normal for them.
Also I can assure you that the individual that you are talking about was an Iranian and not an Indian. He is an "old" friend of mine on this forum. I can spot double users (on any forum) from a mile away as it is not that hard.
Anyway enough of time has been wasted on this irrelevant discussion/nonsense. What needed to be written about this hilarious thread and topic was written by me and many other users. Arab as non-Arab, so I will leave it at that and let Mullah fantasies be Mullah fantasies.
Semites don't have culture? I am not even going to bother at this point.
This is hands down one of the stupidest statements in history. This will go down in the history books as one of the most retarded sayings in the world and its entire history.
Also Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) was not a pedo and there is plenty of evidence of his existence.
Amigo, i like your strategy, move on. Report. Be the bigger person. There's only one winner when Arabs vs Iranians bicker, those are sat behind their screens in non-Muslim countries and run with fevour to show their friends, and mock "guys take a look at at these guys hating on each other, we duped em lol". Take care.
Arabs and Iranians (regardless of ethnicity) do not show the hostility that you see online (occasionally) in person. In fact Arabs and genuine Persians from Southern Iran have long had overall cordial relations in the GCC. There is a historical rivalry and now the sectarian element but it is quite frankly blown out of proportion by large. If the opposite was the case there would not be millions of Iranian Arabs or the largest Iranian diaspora in the world outside of the US in the GCC. Or a long history of intermarriages between Arabs (on both sides of the Gulf) and Iranian (Persians, Iranian Arabs, Lurs, Iranian Baloch).
It's just that most of us Arabs really dislike their regime and its policy (the pro-Mullah Iranians probably think similarly about some of our regimes) and current events in the region don't help that. But don't think that Arabs and Iranians, whenever they met, are at odds automatically or necessarily hostile. That's not the case.
Arabs and Iranians, especially from Southern Iran, share quite a lot in common.
We should distinguish between regimes and regime supporters and their views and people. I openly dislike their Mulalh regime and its policies and I have little tolerance for their supporters but that does not mean that I have a problem with ordinary Iranians from say Bushehr across the Gulf or Birjand in Southern Khorasan. This might sound condescending but due to historical reasons in the past 1400 years (I have already talked about this in detail in this thread) it is more or less a one-sided obsession. Arabs don't have much of a reason for having such a obsession (unlike the other way around) other than more recent events.
Let me make this clear so you will understand what I am talking about. Pre-1979 nobody looked at Iran as an enemy or even a state/people that we were occupied with. Pre-1979, the Iranians who dislike Arabs/Islam etc. had the exact same grudge that they have today. So from the viewpoint of Arabs this current conflict is more political. Other than historical rivalry but that is what it is and something that mostly historians are preoccupied with. It has little impact on day-to-day events.
We are sunni muslims and that identity is enough for us, the 70 yr old history of pakistan is also enough for us, f uck u n ur fire worshiping idiotic nation, how dare u disrespect the caliph u bllody dog, u are all dogs of hell u bloddy iranians, filtny degenarates......Pakistan is only 70 years old, was most of the time in its history either part of greater Iran or greater India (aryavarta). Today almost 100 percent of Pakistan are either Iranian nations (pashtuns and baluch) or Indic/Indian nations.
The recent invention of pakistan puts it in a identity problem, because if they claim old history they have to respect history of India and Iran. If they go for muslim history, that's only 1400 years old and the caliphates in Pakistan didnt last longer than 200 years (umayads and abbasids). Other problem is that you're no arabs. So this young/new country, with its Iranian name and almost Iranian National anthem, combined with its Iranian and Indic peoples and official Indic language, has a identity problem below the surface.
They're still mostly ethnic Indians, but muslim Indians. They can deny it, but they are what they hate. That's what happens when foreigners create new fake identities in our regions.
We killed umar and kicked them out of our lands.
Pakistan didnt exist, it was either India or Iran. It's indeed funny if some pakistani claims that Iran or India was occupied by this and that because they themselves were also part of either Iran or India.
Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.There's nothing called "Indic" nations. Dravidians stole this term from the Sindh region. They are not us. Aryavarta belonged to our ancestors.
Pakistan acronym is new, the people it represents (Punjabi, Aghans, Kashmiris etc.) are not.
We claim all history on our land, Islamic or not.
We can use whatever language we want as Lingua franca on our land, can even switch to Spanish if we want - none of your business.
There is nothing called Indians. The proper name is Sindh. Those who stole this name are Dravidians.
So when Arabs or Mongols were whooping your as$es, where was Iran? You talk like Iran is a continuously existing political entity.
I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?We are sunni muslims and that identity is enough for us, the 70 yr old history of pakistan is also enough for us, f uck u n ur fire worshiping idiotic nation, how dare u disrespect the caliph u bllody dog, u are all dogs of hell u bloddy iranians, filtny degenarates......
Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.
No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):
Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.
People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:
Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.
I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...
Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there
Anyways about where "Iran" was during the history:
Ardashir I, who was the first king of the Sasanian Empire, had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān (shahanshahe Iran) in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” His son Shapur I referred to himself as šāhānšāh ērān and anērān (lit. "king of kings of the Aryans and the Non-Aryans") in Middle Persian and šāhānšāh aryān and anaryān in Parthian. Later kings used the same or similar phrases and these titles became the standard designations of the Sasanian sovereigns.
However the major trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek) inscription of Shapur I at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht in Fars, introduces another term ērānšahr (Iranshahr) in Middle Persian and aryānšahr in Parthian. Shapur's declaration reads an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm.. (lit. “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”). This follows his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” and thus makes it "very likely" that ērānšahr "properly denoted the empire".
According to the book and as an ancient Iranian tradition, Ērānšahr is divided into four "mythologically and mentally" defined regions or sides called kusts. These parts/regions/sides of the state during and after Khosrow I, on the pattern of the four cardinal points, are (1) Xwarāsān “northeast”; (2) Xwarwarān “southwest”; (3) Nēmrōz “southeast”; and (4) Ādurbādagān “northwest”.[1]
by the early Islamic period the "general designation for the land of the Iranians was [...] by then ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.
During the Safavid era (1501–1736), most of the territory of the Sassanid empire regained its political unity, and Safavid kings were assuming the title of "Šāhanšāh-e Irān" (Iran's king of kings).
Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians”
I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?
Firuz nahavandi defended Iran and killed umar. Is that disrespect to read the history? no, it's even written in hadiths. If you consider this disrespect you should burn all hadith books which you follow and which were written by Iranians.
I am a Shia, pray tell what threat do I pose to the Holy land. Is it not my land also.
Iran has its problems, but it is not a extremes exporting country like Saudi.
Yes Iran is a continiously existing political entity and no one can change that history. Below I'll explain, but first about India.
No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):
Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.
People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:
Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.
I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...
Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there
Anyways about where "Iran" was during the history:
Ardashir I, who was the first king of the Sasanian Empire, had used the older word ērān (Parthian aryān) as part of his titles and in accordance with its etymology. At Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars province and the issued coins of the same period, Ardashir I calls himself Ardašīr šāhānšāh ērān (shahanshahe Iran) in the Middle Persian version and šāhānšāh aryān in its Parthian version both meaning “king of kings of the Aryans.” His son Shapur I referred to himself as šāhānšāh ērān and anērān (lit. "king of kings of the Aryans and the Non-Aryans") in Middle Persian and šāhānšāh aryān and anaryān in Parthian. Later kings used the same or similar phrases and these titles became the standard designations of the Sasanian sovereigns.
However the major trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek) inscription of Shapur I at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht in Fars, introduces another term ērānšahr (Iranshahr) in Middle Persian and aryānšahr in Parthian. Shapur's declaration reads an. . .ērānšahr xwadāy hēm.. (lit. “I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans”). This follows his title “king of kings of the Aryans,” and thus makes it "very likely" that ērānšahr "properly denoted the empire".
According to the book and as an ancient Iranian tradition, Ērānšahr is divided into four "mythologically and mentally" defined regions or sides called kusts. These parts/regions/sides of the state during and after Khosrow I, on the pattern of the four cardinal points, are (1) Xwarāsān “northeast”; (2) Xwarwarān “southwest”; (3) Nēmrōz “southeast”; and (4) Ādurbādagān “northwest”.[1]
by the early Islamic period the "general designation for the land of the Iranians was [...] by then ērān (also ērān zamīn, šahr-e ērān), and ērānī for its inhabitants.
During the Safavid era (1501–1736), most of the territory of the Sassanid empire regained its political unity, and Safavid kings were assuming the title of "Šāhanšāh-e Irān" (Iran's king of kings).
Even Ottoman sultans, when addressing the Āq Quyunlu and Safavid kings, used such titles as the “king of Iranian lands” or the “sultan of the lands of Iran” or “the king of kings of Iran, the lord of the Persians”
I'm not religious, when u disrespect Iran I'll just read you the history for you. We should tolerate your islamist propaganda, but you can't tolerate what is written in hadiths?
Firuz nahavandi defended Iran and killed umar. Is that disrespect to read the history? no, it's even written in hadiths. If you consider this disrespect you should burn all hadith books which you follow and which were written by Iranians.
No, dravidians are a minority in India. Also the term India is from old-Iranian and old-Indian (old Indo-Iranian languages):
Rivers, such as the Sapta Sindhavah ("seven rivers" Sanskrit: सप्त सिन्धवplay a prominent part in the hymns of the Rig Veda, and consequently in early Hindu religion. It may have been derived from an older Proto-Indo-Iranian hydronym, as a cognate name, hapta həndu, exists in the Avestan language.
People of India are still themselves, looking to the region of Aryavarta, the aryans didnt live only in what is today known as pakistan:
Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryans", Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːɾjaːˈʋəɾtə]) is the historic name for the present-day northern Indian subcontinent, including the territories north of the Vindhya Range in India as per the classical Sanskrit literature. This is the region where the historic "Aryans" (early Indo-Aryan peoples) lived.
Sindh and Hind has the same meaning, Iranian branch of aryans called the place Hind, Indian branch of aryans called it Sind.
I doubt about Pakistanis being pride of their pre-islamic history because then they have to admit their brotherhood with people of India and Iran who also were not muslims.
I don't know with this mentality of many pakistanis who try to be arabs more than arabs themselves.. I truely doubt if you like your hindu, budhist, aryan cultural-religious history...
Here you go again with "when arabs where wooping your asses".. as if Muhammed Bin Qasim didnt invade your territory. Maybe in pakistani schoolbooks you read that those region were already arab and muhammed bin qasim just came there to bring flowers to his arab aunt living there