Syrian Civil War (Graphic Photos/Vid Not Allowed)

[Al-Kurdi]

turksih priorites

https://twitter.com/x/status/698869198244683776

https://twitter.com/x/status/698868486341177344

https://twitter.com/x/status/698834377908695040

 

[libertycall]

dude base on your logic i say this madness started when bani umayah stole the caliphate or lets go deeper in history it all started when the power seekers after the death of P.mohammad PBUH stole the caliphate from the righteous ruler. you want to go deeper ? it all started from disobeying of adam . get your facts straight and speak with legitimate facts. this madness in region is because of the foreign powers (us fr and ...) and their slaves which started from 8 years war of saddam and his supporters . before that the region was almost peaceful and no one was mushrek or molhed or these crap of these days.

Righteous ruler? You're suggesting that among all of the tens of thousands of Sahaba at the time there was only one who was righteous? And you call others 'Takfiris'?? If that's the case, the Prophet pbuh should have just restricted his preaching to a handful of people. In fact I'm sure the Quraysh would have happily cut a deal with him on this basis.

Talking about righteous rulers, why did you abandon Imam Zayd Ibn Ali (A.S)? He declared himself Imam. Why have you not included him in the list of Imams?? Is it because he refused to curse Imam Abu Bakr (A.S), Imam Umar (A.S) and Imam Uthman (A.S)? It wasn't the followers of Amir Muawiya (A.S) who killed Imam Ali (A.S), it was his own fanatical supporters angry with him for not being 'righteous' enough.

It is not most of us who base our religious beliefs on the political disagreements of centuries ago.

Regarding Saddam he was a racist and Khomeini was a sectarian fanatic. The former killed non-Arabs, and the latter killed non-Shiites. One was a Hitler and the other a Stalin. Saddam helped the Indians smuggle weapons into Pakistan, and Khomeini helped create sectarian Shiite groups in Pakistan.

 

[RoadRunner401]

Regarding Saddam he was a racist and Khomeini was a sectarian fanatic. The former killed non-Arabs, and the latter killed non-Shiites. One was a Hitler and the other a Stalin. Saddam helped the Indians smuggle weapons into Pakistan, and .

Here is the freaky Part, even years after Saddams death, he is still managing to help with the smuggling of weapons into Pakistan, financed by, House of Saud,isnt that amazing.

 

[spiderkiller]

Righteous ruler? You're suggesting that among all of the tens of thousands of Sahaba at the time there was only one who was righteous? And you call others 'Takfiris'?? If that's the case, the Prophet pbuh should have just restricted his preaching to a handful of people. In fact I'm sure the Quraysh would have happily cut a deal with him on this basis.

Talking about righteous rulers, why did you abandon Imam Zayd Ibn Ali (A.S)? He declared himself Imam. Why have you not included him in the list of Imams?? Is it because he refused to curse Imam Abu Bakr (A.S), Imam Umar (A.S) and Imam Uthman (A.S)? It wasn't the followers of Amir Muawiya (A.S) who killed Imam Ali (A.S), it was his own fanatical supporters angry with him for not being 'righteous' enough.

It is not most of us who base our religious beliefs on the political disagreements of centuries ago.

Regarding Saddam he was a racist and Khomeini was a sectarian fanatic. The former killed non-Arabs, and the latter killed non-Shiites. One was a Hitler and the other a Stalin. Saddam helped the Indians smuggle weapons into Pakistan, and Khomeini helped create sectarian Shiite groups in Pakistan.

here is not the place and now is not the time for ideological discussions but let me just tell you something. being a righteous and decent man is different from being a decent and righteous ruler. saying that the ruling of muslim ummah was stolen by unrighteous and power seekers doesn't necessarily mean they were bad or unrighteous muslims. try to understand the difference. the other thing imagine a father is dying and he has a very important legacy and has so many children he knows exactly when he is going to die , is it logical to just leave the children alone with his legacy or heritage? now imagine the father is the prophet of muslim ummah. what legacy is bigger than the fate and destiny of muslim ummah ? don't you believe that a legitimate ruler or father will leave his people with the one that HE think is righteous? what makes prophet pbuh exception ? didn't he assign anyone to rule after him ? or just said ok after my death you choose who is going to rule. is it even logical ? who knows the better future of ummah ? prophet or the council of tribes? don't tell me his name should have been mentioned in quran. there are reasons and facts but unfortunately i'm no preacher and i'm not in the place of talking about the most controversial event in history of islam world . i can NOT say something that may be wrong or is partly true and can harm shia s big picture.

 

[T-72M1]

Russia continue bombing turkish backed jihadi terrorists

 

[libertycall]

here is not the place and now is not the time for ideological discussions but let me just tell you something. being a righteous and decent man is different from being a decent and righteous ruler. saying that the ruling of muslim ummah was stolen by unrighteous and power seekers doesn't necessarily mean they were bad or unrighteous muslims. try to understand the difference. the other thing imagine a father is dying and he has a very important legacy and has so many children he knows exactly when he is going to die , is it logical to just leave the children alone with his legacy or heritage? now imagine the father is the prophet of muslim ummah. what legacy is bigger than the fate and destiny of muslim ummah ? don't you believe that a legitimate ruler or father will leave his people with the one that HE think is righteous? what makes prophet pbuh exception ? didn't he assign anyone to rule after him ? or just said ok after my death you choose who is going to rule. is it even logical ? who knows the better future of ummah ? prophet or the council of tribes? don't tell me his name should have been mentioned in quran. there are reasons and facts but unfortunately i'm no preacher and i'm not in the place of talking about the most controversial event in history of islam world . i can NOT say something that may be wrong or is partly true and can harm shia s big picture.

and yet you're engaging in one. Do you really expect me not to respond and just listen to your lectures?

it's exactly the same. There is a difference between a capable ruler and a non-capable ruler, but the man who is righteous as a person is not called righteous if he's an unrighteous ruler. That's elementary logic.

you're saying that a muslim can be a thief and tyrant but still be a good muslim?

Let me say once again. Imam Zayd ibn Ali (A.S) declared that he had the legitimate right to rule Muslims. He was the grandson of Husayn (A.S). If according to your beliefs the only true knowledge of Islam was passed down from the line of Imam Ali (A.S) then how is it that you deny his Imamate? Why are you stealing his claim?

I agree this topic is better addressed in another thread, but unlike yourself I have no interest in engaging in 'secret' discussions. I'm happy for any Muslim to see for themselves the rights or wrongs of this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, the leadership of Muslims should be on the basis of election; not on the basis of inheritance because of being Arab or non-Arab.

 

[spiderkiller]

you're saying that a muslim can be a thief and tyrant but still be a good muslim?

let me just answer the green part. that event took place with many tribes and many people involved. we can not judge all of those people based on the decision of 2 or 3 . they just followed them . real thieves were traitors to muslim umma and based on islam philosophy will not be considered as GOOD (the most proportional word in every language. )

 

[libertycall]

let me just answer the green part. that event took place with many tribes and many people involved. we can not judge all of those people based on the decision of 2 or 3 . they just followed them . real thieves were traitors to muslim umma and based on islam philosophy will not be considered as GOOD (the most proportional word in every language. )

You're in a curious position to claim that people weren't given the right to vote. You don't even believe that the Muslims should have had the right to choose their ruler; since you think that choice of ruler is by 'divine right of blood'. On that basis even if all the Muslims had voted against him, you would have rejected their choice.

Once again, if you believe that all the Muslims were given the names of the future Imams of the Muslims, how is it that Imam Zayd ibn Ali (A.S) despite being a pious brave Muslim and the son of Husayn (A.S) is rejected by you as a Imam? How is it that if according to your beliefs such knowledge was widespread, that Zayd ibn Ali was misguided? Or ar you claiming that he was 'usurping' the rights of others??

 

[Madali]

let me just answer the green part. that event took place with many tribes and many people involved. we can not judge all of those people based on the decision of 2 or 3 . they just followed them . real thieves were traitors to muslim umma and based on islam philosophy will not be considered as GOOD (the most proportional word in every language. )

Please don't engage with him on Sunni/shia discussions. There are many religious forums all over the web if that needs to be discussed.

Even the smallest debates creates secterian gaps and in such gaps, only the enemies of our country win.

 

[TheRafael00000]

Syria lost most of it's troops. What left is Russian 4000 troops and RAF. Then the Kurdish force a neutral party. So it will be another 4 to 5 years war. In the end, Russia will lose both Iranian support and Kurdish alliance.

 

[libertycall]

Please don't engage with him on Sunni/shia discussions. There are many religious forums all over the web if that needs to be discussed.

Even the smallest debates creates secterian gaps and in such gaps, only the enemies of our country win.

Whatever dude. If you can't defend your historical claims, then don't bring them up. Ahmad Kasravi one of your own did and when he asked your leaders in Iran too many awkward questions, he was killed.

The majority of Muslims do not spend their time looking into ancient historical political disputes, that's usually the obsession of smaller sectarian minorities; hence you can bamboozle them with your nonsense. Everything that you say about the first three Imam's of the Muslims, is also claimed by other sects about your leaders, by those who have broken away from you.

That's the mad mentality of sect and sectarian politics, an endless search finding ways to condemn and demonize the views of the majority; born out of a fear that the sect members are going to abandon their beliefs.

 

[Madali]

Whatever dude. If you can't defend your historical claims, then don't bring them up. Ahmad Kasravi was one of your own did and when he asked your leaders in Iran too many awkward questions, he was killed.

The majority of Muslims do not spend their time looking into ancient historical political disputes, that's usually the obsession of smaller sectarian minorities; hence you can bamboozle them with your nonsense. Everything that you say about the first three Imam's of the Muslims, is also claimed by other sects about your leaders by those who have broken away from you.

That's the mad mentality of sect and sectarian politics, an endless search finding ways to condemn and demonize the views of the majority; born out of a fear that the sect members are going to abandon their beliefs.

I addressed my request to him, asking him politely not to engage in religious discussions in this thread, so as to not cause secterian conflicts.

 

[Barmaley]

Happy Valentine's Day over Syria

 

[Salman_Farsi]

I thought the madness started when the Safavis invaded Persia, did a Holocaust of the Sunni Persian majority, ethnically cleansed the rest, and after the Ottoman Caliph tried to invite them to a peace conference, invaded Mesopotamia and massacred the Sunni population of Baghdad, and desecrated the tombs of Imam Abu Hanifa (A.S) one of the four great ulema of the Sunnis and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (A.S.) the famed Sufi mystic.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course we could begin sooner and discuss how after the 'revolution', the first thing Khomeini did was declare Sunni Persians not to have the same rights as Shiites, and killed most of the leaders of the Sunnis including those Sunnis who had supported him.

What is wrong with you?!? Killing sunni leaders?!? Different rights?!? Are you OK?!
You constantly persist on involving Iran and Iranians in sectarian issues and then accusing them of sectarianism, when they react! This racial and sectarian bullshits in PDF from anti-Iran members are just disgusting.

 

[libertycall]

What is wrong with you?!? Killing sunnier leaders?!? Different rights?!? Are you OK?!

@Madali maybe you should have a word with your boy here. I'm happy to give him a list of some of the Sunni Iranian leaders that Khomeini killed and imprisoned after the 'revolution' and quote him the portions of the Iranian legal system that make Sunni Iranians second-class citizens but want to avoid dragging this thread off-topic.