I will say this simply - if we can't voice the names of the killers of Ahlolbayt {A} and condemn their actions unreservedly, we are no Shia. And we cannot simply limit ourselves just to the killers of Emam Hoseyn {A} just because the other side is more or less forced to condemn them because of the barbarity at Karbala - Emam Aly {A} was Martyred by ebn moljem (LA) on the orders of muawiya (LA) and Hazrate Fatima {S} was killed with Her unborn child Mohsen {A} by omar ibn khattab (LA) who dropped the door on Her, leading to her Martyrdom and She departed this world deprived of Jannat ol Baqi by abu bakr ibn abu qahafa (LA) and omar (LA).
These are the truths our ulema must be free to declare from the pulpit without state pressure restraining them. I'm not saying they be allowed to swear with abusive words from the pulpit, merely that they be allowed to speak on these subjects truthfully and send La'nat as is deserved.
Nobody's preventing our ulema from condemning those actions. Profanity is another matter. So is la'nat when it comes to a token number of key figures dear to Sunni Moslems (such as Aisha). We can criticize and condemn without cursing. It takes nothing away from our beliefs, and helps reduce fitna at a time when the enemy is focusing fully on stoking sectarian divisions within the Islamic world.
they edit their own books of hadith to hide references Shia ulema draw from them to prove the Emami/Jafari fiqh. Such liars and thieves are no Muslims. Even a non-Muslim who doesn't even believe in the Prophet {S} might pick up the Quran and from a philosophical standpoint uncover knowledge that thus far escaped our own scholars - does that make him Muslim? No, of course not and neither does it for the sunnis.
Sunnis are Moslems because they adhere to the principles reflected in the shahada, the unicity of God and Prophethood of Muhammad (sAws) as the Khatam ol-Anbiya, and also because they believe in the Holy Qur'an as the revelated Word of God.
This qualifies a person as Moslem. Being Moslem does not imply that one will necessarily follow the most ideal and most complete path. It is necessary, for the sake of the stability of the Islamic Ommat, to grant this much latitude and inclusiveness when it comes to defining the borders of the fold of Islam.
I'd strongly advise against takfir versus Sunni Moslems, as I do in regards to takfir versus Shia Moslems. Please read up on Islamic rulings regarding takfir and please do tobe.
I won't go into the detail of Safavid rule but Shah Ismail I's rule was outright brutal to sunnis and he spared no thought before unleashing the Qizilbash on them (he butchered uzbeks en masse and made a drinking goblet out of their khan's skull). Shah Abbas I and onwards became more mellow but even they would time to time lash out and massacre/displace sunnis for causing unrest.
Not because they were Sunnis. But due to political antagonisms with foreign and local adversaries. Those resettled for instance were Sorani speakers i.e. Kurds from the western frontier, who were transferred to the Bojnurd area in Khorasan, eastern Iran because the Ottomans were doing propaganda to recruit traitors from amongst them. They weren't resettled because of some general policy against Sunnis.
Claiming otherwise would be like contending that the Islamic Republic intervened in Syria and Iraq due to alleged adversity towards Sunni Islam, which is of course a complete fabrication promoted by the enemies of Iran and Islam.
Islamic Iran will continue supporting the Palestinian cause, as well as other legitimate struggles of Sunni Moslems like she did in Bosnia during the 1990's, no matter how hard the zio-American empire tries to create rifts between Islamic obediences.
Now as far as yasser al-habib goes, I'll be forthcoming - his politics are wrong and disruptive in my view. But his sermons are always on point and he cites his sources for the viewers and in light of that, I refuse to be a sheep and falsely condemn him on religious basis. Nor am I a fan of Shirazis who want to more or less move to a style of governance conceived in Mossadegh's era but if they recite Majles and back their claims with references, I'll definitely listen and acknowledge the truth.
Do you prefer adhering to a current which in all likelihood is backed by the MI6? When have Anglo-Saxon imperialist regimes ever been sponsoring religiously sound movements in the Islamic world? From their promotion of Taymyism in the Arabic Peninsula to Babism / Bahaism in Iran and the Ahmadiya in the Indian subcontinent (with their links to globalism and zionism), to what Imam Khomeini (r) termed as American Islam; the Shirazi sect is no exception.
You can find in Iranian media a plethora of religious arguments which correctly debunk Yaser al-Habib's problematic narratives. On various points, the Shirazis are erring on the religious front.
To close, Iranians compromise WAY too much. Look at Anbar in iraq for example - the name itself is Persian and even after the "rashidun" period, the town remained a bastion of Iranian culture. Guess what? Iranians over time gave it all up instead of defending it stubbornly and forsook the culture, language and traditions of their forefathers, melting away into the shitpot of iraqi demographics
This is not false, but it took place quite some time ago.
and now Anbar is a hellhole full of murderous sunnis who use it as a base to launch terrorist attacks on Shia Shrines, whether of the Emams {A}, Emamzadehs or those of their Companions.
Murderous takfiris, not Sunnis. Those takfiris aren't Sunnis. They merely use the mask of Sunni Islam in order to cause fitna among Moslems, with direct and indirect support from the zio-American imperialist enemy.
I refuse to give any more ground than we already traded away. Get your house in order, squash sunnism with debate, demographics and force and then swiftly move to repeat the process with karkasparasti/gabarism aka zoroastrianism. And for that, you need to shed this soft-hearted Iranian mentality of compromise that you've held for centuries (it very nearly ended my own family's heritage until I revitalized it).
Takfirism needs to be squashed, not Sunnism.
The demographic issue is real, however it's not about putting down Sunni Moslems either, but simply about preserving the religious identity and character of Iran. To this effect, there's only one solution: the government must absolutely implement policies designed to increase the fertility rate, including all sorts of incentives to families with two and more children.
There's more at stake here than the denominational composition of Iran's demography, demographic slump is also a major additional threat to the economy, to innovation and to Iran's technological and scientific standing, and also to "ethno"-national and civilizational continuity because once a certain threshold is passed, lasting denatality can only be neutralized through mass immigration.
As for Zoroastrianism, it has almost ceased existing as a live religion practiced by any numerically significant community, and is more often taking the shape of an identitarian and cultural marker, mostly among Iranians of secular nationalist persuasions. Here efforts must concentrate on the cultural and political levels.
iranwire.com
