War between Saudi Arabia and Iran may happen in just 10-15yrs – Crown Prince

[The SC]

The last I read, Ottomans(Turks) took it from Abbasids (Arabs) after defeating their protectors and providers, Mamuluks(Turks) of Egypt. I don't know where you got this notion of handing over of Khilafah by the the generous Arabs.

Who has raised up and allowed the "Mamluks" (do you know what the word means in Arabic?).. to get to high positions in the army and politics so they could take over? if not the Arabs and what about the Seljuqs?.. it is simple, just read history as it is ..Some just think that Islam was bestowed on Turks first..

 

[mangekyo]

Arabs, Azerbaijani and Qashqai Turks, Kurds, Lurs, Balochs all of them are potential allies for the US especially Kurds.

This shows how little you know about Iran.

 

[Sharpshooter12]

Who has raised up and allowed the "Mamluks" (do you know what the word means in Arabic?).. to get to high positions in the army and politics so they could take over? if not the Arabs.. it is simple just read history as it is ..

I guess the same guys who were controlled by the Seljuks for most part of their later rule. Its quite simple really, Ummayads rule relied purely on Arab forces, Abbasids initially preferred Persians over Arabs, because they basically brought As Safah to power and later when they became too powerful brought Turks to counter them. So your point perhaps stands for Mamuluks or Atabegs.

But Arabs had no role whatsoever in "grooming" of Ottomans. And it was the Ottomans who brought the glory and prestige of Caliphate back after taking it from the Abbasids living under Mamuluk protection who were just ceremonial caliphs ever since the destruction of Baghdad.

 

[The SC]

I guess the same guys who were controlled by the Seljuks for most part of their later rule. Its quite simple really, Ummayads rule relied purely on Arab forces, Abbasids initially preferred Persians over Arabs, because they basically brought As Safah to power and later when they became too powerful brought Turks to counter them. So your point perhaps stands for Mamuluks or Atabegs.

But Arabs had no role whatsoever in "grooming" of Ottomans. And it was the Ottomans who brought the glory and prestige of Caliphate back after taking it from the Abbasids living under Mamuluk protection who were just ceremonial caliphs ever since the destruction of Baghdad.

What about the Seljuqs? not the same as the Mamluks? even the Persians.. who has conquered them first.. no Role of the Arabs? please revise history before talking..

 

[Aramagedon]

not Mohammed Alaskari as Shia believe.

We know prophet Christ (AS) is not dead unlike what Christians believe... So if a prophet can be alive for 2019 years and he will return after arrival of Imam Mahdi (AS) why you believe son of Imam Hassan al Askari (AS) is dead?!!!!

Unlike Christians that believe prophet Christ (AS) is dead we believe prophet Christ is alive and he will return after arrival of Imam Mahdi. And unlike some Sunnis that believe Imam Mahdi is dead we believe Imam Mahdi is alive, he is 12th Imam, son of Imam Hassan al-Askari (AS) and he will return when his fellows are ready to defend him against his enemies. (Sufiyanis and Jews)

We know Imam Mahdi (AS) born at year 255 hijri and now it is 1439 hijri. God has power to keep him alive for ~1200 years.

We know Prophet Noah (AS) aged for 950 - 1200 years.

It is not only me that believe Imam Mahdi is alive. All of Shias believe Imam Mahdi is alive.

You think Khurasan and Qum are fake. They are made up by Shias.

Your beliefs are actually stupid. Because Khurasan is where Imam Ali al-Rida (AS) [Eitght Imam] is buried and Qum is where his sister daughter of Imam Musa al-Kazim (AS) [seventh Imam] is buried.

There are four Imams who are buried in Jannat al Baqi, Medina, but their shrines are destroyed by Arabs.

 

[Falcon29]

We know prophet Christ (AS) is not dead unlike what Christians believe... So if a prophet can be alive for 2019 years and he will return after arrival of Imam Mahdi (AS) why you believe son of imam Hassan al Askari (AS) is dead?!!!!

Unlike Christians that believe prophet Christ (AS) is dead we believe prophet Christ is alive and he will return after arrival of Imam Mahdi. And unlike some Sunnis that believe Imam Mahdi is dead we believe Imam Mahdi is alive, he is 12th Imam, son of Imam Hassan al-Askari (AS) and he will return when his fellows are ready to defend him against his enemies. (Sufiyanis and Jews)

We know Imam Mahdi (AS) born at year 255 hijri and now it is 1439 hijri. God has power to keep him alive for ~1200 years.

We know Prophet Noah (AS) aged for 950 - 1200 years.

It is not only me that believe Imam Mahdi is alive. All of Shias believe Imam Mahdi is alive.

You think Khurasan and Qum are fake. They are made up by Shias.

Your beliefs is actually stupid. Because Khurasan is where Imam Ali al-Rida (AS) is buried and Qum is where his sister daughter of Imam Musa al-Kazim (AS) is buried.

There are four Imams who are buried in Janet al Baqi, Medina, but their shrines are destroyed by Arabs.

Mohammed Bin Askari does not exist, you should do some research unto Hadith. Prophet Isa(AS) is not on planet earth and was raised. Prophet Mohammed(SAW) hadith on the Mahdi does not suggest what you suggest. That he will emerge to oppose Sunni's and Arabs. He is a rightly guided person born at end times and will be between 30-40 . It said people take him out of his house or specific small number of people ask for his hand to rule during Hajj.

Anyway if you really respect him, stop using him as tool to gain influence among people. PS: Sunni's do not believe he is dead , Sunni's believe he will be born at end times which many believe is our time. If he is alive it can not be known to us and leave that on Allah(SWT).

As for what I said about 'Khurusan', I said the hadith of an army from Khorosan or modern day Iran region is not true and was fabricated during time of Abu Muslim Al Khurasani. Those who thought there even exists Mohammed bin Askari thought he would come at a time to revolt against Caliph's very long ago and did not know how our time today would be like.

Mahdi is no superman and Allah wil fix him, ie let him know himself/support him and give him spiritual strength. Shia think the hadith means Allah will arrange everything for him in one night, which is not true. In Arabic it says Allah will fix him, and doesn't mean he is sinner or something. Means he will get the necessary spiritual strength and other things he needs.

Last thing if you are concern about Mahdi don't attach him to your political agenda all over this forum. You are presenting him as if he shares your political agenda. If we do live to see that time you will be underwhelmed and he will not be what you think.

 

[Aramagedon]

According to our 12 Shia Imams almost all of Imam Mahdi’s soldiers are Iranians and few from Sham (Iraq).

Iranians

It can be understood from the hadiths that a considerable number of the special soldiers in the army of al-Mahdi (‘atfs) would be Iranians and they have been mentioned in various ways such as the people of Rey, the people of Khurasan, the treasures of Taleqan, the Qummis, the people of Persia, etc.

Imam al-Baqir (‘a) said: “The forces with black banners that will rise up from Khurasan will come to Kufah, and when Hadrat al-Mahdi (‘atfs) appears in Mecca, they will pay allegiance to him.”14
Imam al-Baqir (‘a) also said: “The supporters of Hadrat al-Qa’im (‘a) will be three hundred and thirteen persons who will be from the children of the a‘jam (non-Arabs).”15

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar said that the Prophet (S) said: “God will give your (Muslims’) power to the a‘jam; they are like lions that will never desert the battlefield. They will kill you (Arabs) and plunder your properties.”16

Hudhayfah also narrated a hadith with the same content from the Prophet (S).17 Of course, the implication of the hadith is debatable and problematic. Based on the hadiths, a time will come when the Iranians will unsheathe their swords against the Arabs to spread Islam and make them return to Islam, and they will slay those who oppose them. The condition of the Arabs at that time will be very deplorable with difficult and unpleasant days awaiting them.

Although a‘jam is said to be the non-Arabs, the Iranians are definitely included. On the basis of other hadiths, both in preparing the ground for operations to be conducted prior to the advent (zuhur) and at the time of the uprising of Hadrat al-Mahdi (‘atfs), the Iranians will have a pivotal role and they will constitute a large number of combatants.

In a sermon delivered by ‘Ali (‘a) regarding the supporters of al-Mahdi (‘atfs) and their nationalities, the names of some Iranian cities have been mentioned.

Asbagh ibn Nabatah said that the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) delivered a sermon in which he mentioned Hadrat al-Mahdi (‘atfs) and his supporters who will accompany him in the uprising, saying: “One is from Ahwaz; one from Shushtar; three are from Shiraz whose names are Hafs, Ya‘qub and ‘Ali; four are from Isfahan whose names are Musa, ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah, and Ghalfan; one from Burujerd named Qadim; one is from Nahavand named ‘Abdur-Razzaq; three are from Hamedan18 whose names are Ja‘far, Ishaq and Musa; ten are from Qum whose names are that of the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allah (and in another hadith eighteen have been mentioned); one from Shirvan’; and one is from Khurasan named Darid.

There are also five whose names are that of the Companions of the Cave; one from Amul; one from Gorgan; one from Damghan; one from Sarakhs; one from Saveh; twenty four from Taleqan; two from Qazvin; one from Fars; one from Abhar; one from Ardebil; three from Maragheh; one from Khuy; one from Salmas; three from Abadan; and one from Kazerun.”

Then, the Commander of the Faithful said: “The Noble Prophet (S) mentioned to me three hundred and thirteen persons of the supporters of al-Mahdi (‘atfs) equal to the number of the supporters in (the Battle of) Badr, and he said: ‘God will bring them from both the east and the west to the precinct of the Ka‘bah’ faster than the blink of an eye.”19

As you can observe, among the three hundred and thirteen persons constituting the special corps of Hadrat al-Mahdi (‘atfs)—who will accompany him at the beginning of the uprising—seventy two will come from the present cities of Iran. If we also take into account what has been narrated in Dala’il al-Imamah20 of Tabari and the names of cities that were in Iran at that time, the number of Iranians will become more than this.

In this hadith the name of a city is sometimes mentioned twice, sometimes the names of some cities in a country, and at other times the name of the very country has been mentioned.

In case the hadith has been correctly recorded, it perhaps bespeaks of the divisions and the names used at that time, thus geographical divisions in the present age cannot serve as the criteria to interpret and understand this hadith; for, the names of cities change over time; sometimes, the name of one city is used for a country at the present time or vice versa.

The other point is that by collating the names of cities (mentioned in the hadith in question) with the present geographical map of the world, it can be concluded perhaps that the supporters of the Imam are scattered throughout the world and it is possible that the word “

It is because at no time will the earth be devoid of good men; otherwise, it will come to an end.
In other hadiths, some cities have been especially mentioned. Here, we will suffice to mention some hadiths concerning the cities of Qum, Khurasan and Taleqan:

a. Qum
Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) said: “The soil of Qum is holy… Aren’t they the supporters of our Qa’im and callers toward our right?”21

‘Affan al-Basiri said that Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) said to him: “Do you know why Qum is named “Qum”?” I replied: “God, His Messenger and you know better.” He said: “It is called Qum because its inhabitants will rally behind the Qa’im of Muhammad’s Progeny (‘atfs) and rise up along with him (‘atfs). Along this line, they will show their perseverance and assist him (‘atfs).”22

b. Khurasan
The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) said that the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “…There are treasures in Khurasan but they are not gold and silver. Instead, they are men who will gather together on their belief in God and His Messenger.”23Perhaps, it means that what they have in common is the correct belief in God and His Messenger, or it may mean that God will gather them one day in Mecca.

C. Taleqan
The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) said: “Blessed is Taleqan! It is because God has treasures there which are neither gold nor silver. Instead, they are men of faith who have really recognized God and they will be the companions of the Mahdi (Guided One) of Muhammad’s Progeny (‘atfs) at the end of time.”24

2. Arabs
The hadiths related to the participation of Arabs in the uprising of Hadrat al-Mahdi (‘a) can be classified into two. Some indicate their lack of participation in the revolution of al-Mahdi while a number of other hadiths mention some cities in Arab countries in which there are those who will rise up to support the Imam.

Assuming that they are authentic, the hadiths that talk about the lack of participation of the Arabs can be justified. For, it might be possible that there will be no Arabs among the soldiers who will accompany the Imam at the beginning of the uprising. Shaykh Hurr ‘Amili in the book, Ithbat al-Hudah, has interpreted it this way.

Concerning the Arab cities mentioned in the hadiths, perhaps non-Arab soldiers residing there will hasten to aid the Imam, and not those who are Arab in origin. It may also mean that it refers to Arab governments and states. Let us look at this category of hadiths:

Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) said: “Keep aloof from the Arabs for they will have a gloomy and dangerous future; isn’t it that no one from among them will accompany Hadrat al-Mahdi in his uprising?”25Shaykh Hurr ‘Amili said: “Perhaps this statement of Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) refers to the beginning of the Mahdi’s uprising, or it alludes to their minimal participation…”

The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Great and noble personalities from the land of Sham will join al-Mahdi (‘atfs) as well as those from the various tribes and lands adjacent to Sham; they are the ones whose hearts are said to be like pieces of iron. They are worshippers at night and lions during the day.”26

Imam al-Baqir (‘a) said: “Three hundred and thirteen persons, the same number as that of the supporters (Muslim soldiers) in the Battle of Badr, will pay allegiance to Hadrat al-Mahdi in between the rukn and maqam (in the Ka‘bah). From among them, great figures from among the people of Egypt, good men from Sham, and good men from among the people of Iraq can be seen and the Imam will rule to the extent that God would wish.”27
Imam al-Baqir (‘a) also said concerning the city of Kufah: “When Hadrat al-Qa’im appears and proceeds to Kufah, God will choose from behind Kufah (Najaf al-Ashraf) seventy thousand truthful and upright people. They will be among the supporters and companions of the Imam.”28

Continue: https://www.al-islam.org/an-overview-of-mahdi-s-government-najimuddin-tabasi/soldiers-imam-al-mahdi

 

[Falcon29]

Smh....

 

[925boy]

Usrael got it *** handed to it everytime it took on the Arabs,, it needed the support of France and England every time and now the US.. obviously you feel useless and moving backward.. that is what your mind says about you.. and you write it.. what a shame..no self awareness at all..

now youre talkong nonsense. the only time arabs beat/didnt lose to Israel,is when they had Iranian help.sorry,thats facts.

 

[The SC]

now youre talkong nonsense. the only time arabs beat/didnt lose to Israel,is when they had Iranian help.sorry,thats facts.

Sorry, now you are taking ignorance, see the October war.. and from 67 to 73..56 was England, France and Usrael, and 48 was the whole western world, mainly England arming and helping the Usraelis..What could you do about that..in 1973 Usrael was on the verge of collapsing wasn't it for the forceful intervention of the US..the Iranians were no where to see in this.. Iraq alone could take care of Iran for 8 years.. hope you have learned a thing or two.. and please, before quoting me, educate yourself first..

 

[Aramagedon]

Iraq alone could take care of Iran for 8 years..

With tens billions dollars of Saudi help.

And not one single penny against israel.

 

[Tokhme khar]

Aaahahahahaaaaaaaaa..........lol........damn I haven't laughed this hard in a while........

Good one Snowlake........

Typical Arab.. .all talk and can't do nothing and the jews whip your sorry asses daily. Arab this Arab that....really your women are fat and ugly your men are disgusting and you cant fight to even protect your mother's. Your Jewish masters come and take you ones your houses and your women whilst you sit there drunk and smoking hubly bubly

You Arabs are GOOD FOR EXCUSES. OH ISRAL HAD HELP....BLA BLA BLA. DEAL WITH IT USELESS ARAB. That's why in the west there is a term

STUPID ARAB.

 

[Manidabest]

This war will never happen and it will be interference by ajams into arabian peninsula due to civil wars or infighting between various countries in arabian peninsula...

 

[Fenasi Kerim]

Arabs are too powerful for you and Iran together.. just get out of NATO and try yourself.. you are the ones hiding like women behind NATO umbrella, mainly the US one, just like your brothers in Usrael.. Your leaders know better..that is why they avoid provoking Arabs all the time..

LOL sh*t chatting "powerful" Arabs can not kick Turkey, Iran, Israel, ISIS out of there "lands".

Who has raised up and allowed the "Mamluks" (do you know what the word means in Arabic?).. to get to high positions in the army and politics so they could take over? if not the Arabs and what about the Seljuqs?.. it is simple, just read history as it is ..Some just think that Islam was bestowed on Turks first..

First you should read how the Mamluks overthrew the Arabs, it was a bloody palace affair before you chat sh*t and say "allowed" its like saying Ottomans "allowed" Janissaries to overthrow sultans at will, pathetic attempt to rewrite history. You sound like those YPG loser's who say "we did a tactical retreat from Afrin" LMFAO.

Mamluks were individuals sort after usually from a young age by Muslims, they were mainly brought from Byzantine and other economies who were in direct conflict with various Turkic tribes. A Mamluk could have been anyone of any race but Turks were sort after for there war like nature, as were people from the Balkans, Caucasus etc.

The difference is Turks ruled over ALL major Arab centres at various points in history, the Arabs only ruled over SOME Turkic tribes who migrated to Middle East and choose Islam on there way past Persia, much on peaceful terms. Arabs had 1 moment of glory at a weakened time for their foes, Turks had 16+ empires destroying and sacking some of the strongest countries and empires of the time.

Seljuks had nothing to do with Arabs for the most part, apart from ruling over Arabs and some tribes settling giving allegiance to various rulers in Syria and Iraq. I know it hurts to see almost 1000 years of your history belong to the Turks but you have to face historic facts and stop rewriting history, even the crusaders mocked you Arabs and praised the Turks in their fight. From the curved swords of Muslims, to your warfare style, your shields and armour much of it was shaped by the Turkic migrations and superior fighting style.

Arabs are remembered only for one of few things today, religion and science (much of it actually owned by Persians)... Turks are remembered and feared for the 1000s of years of successive warfare from China to Morocco, from Europe to India.

If it were not for the Turks converting to Islam, if the Turks had converted to Christianity or any other religion the demographics of the middle east would have been very different today and your religion would have been bound to the deserts of Arabia and small Islands in the far east.

Staying on topic, for the most part Persian ruled over much of modern day Arabia / Middle East pre Islam, hence another reason for your butt hurt against Persians. But no way in hell incompetent Saudis would be able to take on Iran, Iran would demolish you without daddy America to protect you.

 

[The SC]

LOL sh*t chatting "powerful" Arabs can not kick Turkey, Iran, Israel, ISIS out of there "lands".



First you should read how the Mamluks overthrew the Arabs, it was a bloody palace affair before you chat sh*t and say "allowed" its like saying Ottomans "allowed" Janissaries to overthrow sultans at will, pathetic attempt to rewrite history. You sound like those YPG loser's who say "we did a tactical retreat from Afrin" LMFAO.

Mamluks were individuals sort after usually from a young age by Muslims, they were mainly brought from Byzantine and other economies who were in direct conflict with various Turkic tribes. A Mamluk could have been anyone of any race but Turks were sort after for there war like nature, as were people from the Balkans, Caucasus etc.

The difference is Turks ruled over ALL major Arab centres at various points in history, the Arabs only ruled over SOME Turkic tribes who migrated to Middle East and choose Islam on there way past Persia, much on peaceful terms. Arabs had 1 moment of glory at a weakened time for their foes, Turks had 16+ empires destroying and sacking some of the strongest countries and empires of the time.

Seljuks had nothing to do with Arabs for the most part, apart from ruling over Arabs and some tribes settling giving allegiance to various rulers in Syria and Iraq. I know it hurts to see almost 1000 years of your history belong to the Turks but you have to face historic facts and stop rewriting history, even the crusaders mocked you Arabs and praised the Turks in their fight. From the curved swords of Muslims, to your warfare style, your shields and armour much of it was shaped by the Turkic migrations and superior fighting style.

Arabs are remembered only for one of few things today, religion and science (much of it actually owned by Persians)... Turks are remembered and feared for the 1000s of years of successive warfare from China to Morocco, from Europe to India.

If it were not for the Turks converting to Islam, if the Turks had converted to Christianity or any other religion the demographics of the middle east would have been very different today and your religion would have been bound to the deserts of Arabia and small Islands in the far east.

Staying on topic, for the most part Persian ruled over much of modern day Arabia / Middle East pre Islam, hence another reason for your butt hurt against Persians. But no way in hell incompetent Saudis would be able to take on Iran, Iran would demolish you without daddy America to protect you.

Too much ignorance and but hurt to answer..
Just say who has allowed the Mamluks to those high positions before they took over.. As for Persia it was a fire worshiping nation..who got its ***handed to it by 200 Spartans..let alone the Arabs who conquered it and converted it to Islam.. but continue your daydreaming.. it might help your but Hurt..