PDA

View Full Version : Iran - Britain is the most treacherous



Thinker
06-19-2009, 01:22 PM
Iran's Supreme Leader today singled out Britain as the “most treacherous” Western power

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6534685.ece

Treacherous (definition): characterised by faithlessness or readiness to betray trust; traitorous. deceptive, untrustworthy, or unreliable.

Is Britain treacherous, is Britain the most treacherous, if so what did Britain do or is doing to deserve this title?

This rhetoric appears very similar to that espoused by Mugabe, is it done for the same reason, i.e. a failed leader trying to deflect criticism away from his failures by blaming the old enemy?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Thinker
06-20-2009, 10:05 AM
bump
Reply

aadil77
06-20-2009, 10:06 AM
I thought it would have been america or israel
Reply

Banu_Hashim
06-20-2009, 10:13 AM
I am a little surprised that out of all the possible treacherous nations, he singled out Britain as the most . The government is certainly a mess; but I dunno about being the most treacherous government on the face of this planet.

Allahu Alim.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
06-20-2009, 10:22 AM
Originally Posted by aadil77
I thought it would have been america or israel
Israel is just outright hostile rather than 'treacherous', so doesn't really count ("Iranian cleric slags off Israel.." not exactly news, is it?)

It is, of course, America, but with the new administration deliberately distancing themselves from commenting on the election, and having made some moves to improve relations the Iranians don't want to just throw that all away for the sake of a quick soundbite for home consumption. Britain is just a convenient proxy. Either that, or Khamenei has just been reading the Robert Mugabe book on 'How to Govern'. Come to think of it.... :rollseyes
Reply

Thinker
06-20-2009, 12:53 PM
I watched the speech and I saw him whipping up it the gathering to the point where he blamed all the problems in Iran on other nations. It reminded me of Hitler’s Nuremburg rallies, Mugabe’s rantings on colonialism and the news readers in Kim Jong Il’s north Korea. I note also the censorship and suppression of the peoples access to free information as another parallel with those dictatorial regimes. Once again, it is an example of how easy it is to convince the masses of almost anything and how dangerous it is to have a leader who purports to be a representative of God and who believes he is only answerable to God.
Reply

Banu_Hashim
06-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Britain is just a convenient proxy.
I think that may be the case, in order to deflect attention away from the election result. I.e. blaming someone just for the sake of blaming someone else, which would then unite everyone in a common agenda.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
06-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
I am a little surprised that out of all the possible treacherous nations, he singled out Britain as the most . The government is certainly a mess; but I dunno about being the most treacherous government on the face of this planet.

Allahu Alim.
You need to look at the British and Iranian history.

I've been a supporter of Ahmedjinad. But if the votes have been rigged, then the will of the people must be obeyed.

May Allah bring peace and harmony, as a few have died.
:cry:
Reply

Zafran
06-20-2009, 02:15 PM
And those nuclear arms? How many of us reported a blunt statement which the Supreme Leader and the man who ultimately controls all nuclear development in Iran made on 4 June, just eight days before the elections? "Nuclear weapons," he said in a speech in which he encouraged Iranians to vote, "are religiously forbidden (haram) in Islam and the Iranian people do not have such a weapon. But the Western countries and the US in particular, through false propaganda, claim that Iran seeks to build nuclear bombs – which is totally false..."
Intresting article (especially about the supreme leader on Nukes) by Robert fisk

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1710762.html
Reply

Banu_Hashim
06-20-2009, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
You need to look at the British and Iranian history.
I will InshAllah.

But what about the present government of Britain. Surely Gordon Brown isn't treacherous. Boring as heck, maybe.
Reply

alcurad
06-20-2009, 09:26 PM
he refers to history though, and the colonial past-and present?-are not good memories for the subjugated peoples. but it is propaganda, much like the rhetoric about rigged elections and nuclear weapons, half truths distorted to fit a demonized enemy..
Reply

Thinker
06-21-2009, 09:40 AM
Is Iran an example for those Muslims here who want to live in a Muslim state under sharai law i.e. is what I see there with the leadership by autocracy, brainwashed with propaganda, censored and denied access to free information what you want?
Reply

Najm
06-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Originally Posted by Thinker
, brainwashed with propaganda, censored and denied access to free information what you want?
AsSalamOAlaikum WaRehmatuAllah WaBarkatuhu

Are you talking about the ME EXPENSES SCAM? yes we want all the information!!

p.s he must have been refering to the "British Empire". You know the one that rule over every land the reached. Started wars and slave trade. The one at its peak had a poppulation more than 400 million.

Hence the British can be considered to have one of the worst "human rights" records.

FiAmaaniAllah
Reply

The_Prince
06-21-2009, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by Thinker
Is Iran an example for those Muslims here who want to live in a Muslim state under sharai law i.e. is what I see there with the leadership by autocracy, brainwashed with propaganda, censored and denied access to free information what you want?
its not brainwashed, the brainwashing happens in your country where your secular papers and rulers keep brainwashing you into thinking your civilized and better than every other culture and system.

infact your so brainwashed you think that people who speak against you are brainwashed into doing that!
Reply

Thinker
06-21-2009, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
its not brainwashed, the brainwashing happens in your country where your secular papers and rulers keep brainwashing you into thinking your civilized and better than every other culture and system.
My country allows me unfettered access to any information available on the planet so that I might make value judgements on what they and local media tell me. That’s just one difference between my country and totalitarian regimes such as Iran.

I take it then that you would like to live in a country which is ruled as an autocracy, which censors information and which makes access to outside information a criminal offence? Can I know what is your country and where you are currently residing?
Reply

The_Prince
06-21-2009, 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
My country allows me unfettered access to any information available on the planet so that I might make value judgements on what they and local media tell me. That’s just one difference between my country and totalitarian regimes such as Iran.

I take it then that you would like to live in a country which is ruled as an autocracy, which censors information and which makes access to outside information a criminal offence? Can I know what is your country and where you are currently residing?
you see, you are clearly brainwashed. iran does not criminalize foreign info, this is part of your brainwashed mind that you make such comments.
Reply

The_Prince
06-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
My country allows me unfettered access to any information available on the planet so that I might make value judgements on what they and local media tell me. That’s just one difference between my country and totalitarian regimes such as Iran.

I take it then that you would like to live in a country which is ruled as an autocracy, which censors information and which makes access to outside information a criminal offence? Can I know what is your country and where you are currently residing?
can you give me info of stores in your country that publish works that examine and analyze whether the holocaust actually happened.
Reply

Thinker
06-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
you see, you are clearly brainwashed. iran does not criminalize foreign info, this is part of your brainwashed mind that you make such comments.
In Iran it is a criminal offence to have satellite TV; it has been reported on all media that the Iranian government have been closing down internet comms forums etc.,

Can I know what is your country and where you are currently residing?
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 01:25 PM
Brainwashing happens in every country - Even censorship - for example the Iraq enquiry in the UK Gordon Brown doesnt want it to go public - theres the 44 torture photos which Obama doesnt want to release and then theres Iran which doesnt want anyone to find out wants happening - although I've heard its gone preety bad.

There censorship everywhere - just in some places it worse then others.

There are propaganda tools in all countries anyway - its up to the indivdual to believe it or not.
Reply

Trumble
06-21-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
can you give me info of stores in your country that publish works that examine and analyze whether the holocaust actually happened.
I don't know what country he comes from, but as far as I know publishing and selling such works is perfectly legal everywhere in Europe and North America except for Germany, Austria and Romania (the reasons why they are exceptions is pretty obvious, whether you approve or not).

I suspect few actually do as firstly because academically nobody (or at least, very few) take such works remotely seriously and secondly because, thankfully, only a few die-hard neo-Nazi idiots would actually want to buy them. Garbage remains garbage whether you are free to publish, sell and buy it or not.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 08:43 PM
I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system, but not far from ideal. The political power there comes from God(as Iranians believe), not from the people. The country reject the masonic rule of freedom of religion and the jacobin rule of division between state and "church". The iranian system is transcendental (as iranians believe) and that is why it has the promise of eternal existence, unlike democratic states.
Reply

جوري
06-21-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system,
It is NOT an Islamic system. Shiites aren't recognized by main-stream Muslims of whom 85% are sunni, so how is it that you have drawn that conclusion? are you studied in Islamic jurisprudence?

all the best
Reply

MSN
06-21-2009, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system, but not far from ideal. The political power there comes from God(as Iranians believe), not from the people. The country reject the masonic rule of freedom of religion and the jacobin rule of division between state and "church". The iranian system is transcendental (as iranians believe) and that is why it has the promise of eternal existence, unlike democratic states.
Was that a joke?
Reply

جوري
06-21-2009, 08:48 PM
No apparently they kid you not, just following the 'Andromeda' strain thread, I am rather amused at how many non-Muslims are experts on Islamic law..
sob7an Allah.. I oscillate between chuckles and guffaws whenever I read some of the posts on this forum!

:w:
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by MSN
Was that a joke?
No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.
Reply

MSN
06-21-2009, 08:52 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.
I'm sorry what??
Reply

جوري
06-21-2009, 08:53 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
No, I didnt joke. Iranian system is not an islamic staate per se (Khalifa) but it is theocratic, authoritaric and anti-democratic, so then its close to ideal.
Theocracy according to what law or religion? and what do you know about Islamic law vs laws of democracy?..
all democracy defines for you is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. and that is applicable in Islam, it doesn't begin to cover the basic laws in politics/economics/social structure/ inheritance. etc. It is a name for a constitution but it doesn't specify what laws govern under said democratic constitution!

I'd refrain from getting into subjects well beyond your sphere of expertise!

all the best
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 08:56 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Theocracy according to what law or religion? and what do you know about Islamic law vs laws of democracy?..
all democracy defines for you is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. and that is applicable in Islam, it doesn't begin to cover the basic laws in politics/economics/social structure/ inheritance. etc. It is a name for a constitution but it doesn't specify what laws govern under said democratic constitution!

I'd refrain from getting into subjects well beyond your sphere of expertise!

all the best
Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all. :)
Reply

جوري
06-21-2009, 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all. :)

this is in fact what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus85
I like the iranian political system. It is islamic system,
and no their system has no value over any other system, given that they are not judging or living by what God dictates, so how can they be better? In fact they are as bad if not worst!

all the best
Reply

MSN
06-21-2009, 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Purest, You only need to read my posts once again. All what I meant is that current system of Iran (be it shiite authoritarism or anything) has more value than for example dutch, swedish or american liberal democracy. Thats all. :)
Elaborate please...
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 09:15 PM
salaam

The Iranians have there view - but this whole idea of Theocracy isnt realy what Muslims think of when they think of Islamic governance - there is no such thing as Islamic "state" - very modern idea.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by MSN
Elaborate please...
This goes offtopic, but I will answer.
Explaining it to You, a muslim, is unusual for me, but the democratic system has so many bad sides, that its worth to sacrifice it for system which is closer to ideal (for me it would be a catholic state which may take various visions). The biggest mistake of democracy is the cut off from transcendency, and the division between state and "church"(religion). Since the world was created by God, people can't assume that the power in state comes from their decision. Since the people are weak sinful, in democracy they will choose bad things (like homosexual marriages, abortion, euthaniasia, multiculturalism). The Iranian system is not Khalifa of course, also because they are shiite, so I didnt make myself clear then. But it is still anti liberal and anti democratic, which woudlnt allow nihilism. It's based on religion, so it brings for the state the order of forcing morality and forbidding the immorality. That is at least how I see it.
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
This goes offtopic, but I will answer.
Explaining it to You, a muslim, is unusual for me, but the democratic system has so many bad sides, that its worth to sacrifice it for system which is closer to ideal (for me it would be a catholic state which may take various visions). The biggest mistake of democracy is the cut off from transcendency, and the division between state and "church"(religion). Since the world was created by God, people can't assume that the power in state comes from their decision. Since the people are weak sinful, in democracy they will choose bad things (like homosexual marriages, abortion, euthaniasia, multiculturalism). The Iranian system is not Khalifa of course, also because they are shiite, so I didnt make myself clear then. But it is still anti liberal and anti democratic, which woudlnt allow nihilism. It's based on religion, so it brings for the state the order of forcing morality and forbidding the immorality. That is at least how I see it.
Once again i dont think you actually know what Multiculturalism is??? thats just a fact of life - where ever Islam (and any other religion) that spread around the world it had to deal with other cultures - the choices are simple

1 - You tolerate them
2 - You exile/supress or destroy them

Multiculturalism is not a choice - it has exisited ever since. Dealing with it is - you seem to want to eradicate it.
Reply

alcurad
06-21-2009, 09:34 PM
democracy in Islam would be toned down however yuo look at it though, but theocracy is indeed unIslamic as it gets.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Once again i dont think you actually know what Multiculturalism is??? thats just a fact of life - where ever Islam (and any other religion) that spread around the world it had to deal with other cultures - the choices are simple

1 - You tolerate them
2 - You exile/supress or destroy them

Multiculturalism is not a choice - it has exisited ever since. Dealing with it is - you seem to want to eradicate it.
No I dont agree, multiculturalism isn't just tolerating of religious and cultural minorities. Multiculturalism is agreeing that all cultures and religions are equal and neither is dominant. You are living in UK, so for brittish multiculturalist for example sikhism in UK is equal to anglicanism. Now I understand Your stance about that, as You are man from a minority in UK, so I dont expect anything else. But on the other hand, Your brothers and sisters from Pakistan, Somalia,Indonesia or Morocco (I dont know where Your family came from), reject totally multiculturalism. If You dont trust, try to convince them that hinduism or anglicaninsm in their countries are euqal to islam and their states should treat these all religions same way.
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
democracy in Islam would be toned down however yuo look at it though, but theocracy is indeed unIslamic as it gets.
Thats true - the non muslims all think that Islamic governance is based on Theocracy - it well known that not how Muslims ever have viewed Islamic governance.

Democracy as you said will be toned down - but the only way Islamic governace can come in is by the majority wanting it - which is preety democratic.
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 09:45 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
No I dont agree, multiculturalism isn't just tolerating of religious and cultural minorities. Multiculturalism is agreeing that all cultures and religions are equal and neither is dominant. You are living in UK, so for brittish multiculturalist for example sikhism in UK is equal to anglicanism. Now I understand Your stance about that, as You are man from a minority in UK, so I dont expect anything else. But on the other hand, Your brothers and sisters from Pakistan, Somalia,Indonesia or Morocco (I dont know where Your family came from), reject totally multiculturalism. If You dont trust, try to convince them that hinduism or anglicaninsm in their countries are euqal to islam and their states should treat these all religions same way.
Not true at all - Multiculturalism does not mean that all religions are equal beacsue it the UK the state religion is still seen atleast on paper christainty - however people can live the way they want. A christain believes his religion is right and better - a muslim his and a sikh his etc - non of this people think there religions are equal in the UK atleast the majority dont and thats why they are in their faiths.

Furthermore Muslims throughout the world had most of the time tolerated many faiths

- spain - Jews and christains were tolerated
- India - even Hindus were tolerated under the Mughals
- coptic christains in Egypt

I can go on and on to Indonesia and even Morroco where minorities are still there and tolerated.

The only time europe actually had tolernace is in the modern times (right now) and when europe was ran by pagans - other then that i cant think of any other tolerant dealing with minorities or any other faiths?

so do you believe that all other faiths should be exiled or eradicated?
Reply

alcurad
06-21-2009, 09:51 PM
more or less, Ijma'/general agreement is already a aprt of our religious lexicon, still not applied though:(

methinks multiculturalism has extreme and weak stances towards it, the weak one is what zafran is advocating. as in don't persecute them as long as their practices don't break the law, but then the law is based on broad themes drawn primarily from religious/moral sources.
so we do 'impose' in a sense our religon, but then not too unreasonably, murder is forbidden in Islam, I'd say it's so for the rest of the world's religions/moral systems too.

Iran is not exactly a theocracy though, on the other hand the idea in strongly present in their religious thought.
Reply

Zafran
06-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
more or less, Ijma'/general agreement is already a aprt of our religious lexicon, still not applied though:(

methinks multiculturalism has extreme and weak stances towards it, the weak one is what zafran is advocating. as in don't persecute them as long as their practices don't break the law, but then the law is based on broad themes drawn primarily from religious/moral sources.
so we do 'impose' in a sense our religon, but then not too unreasonably, murder is forbidden in Islam, I'd say it's so for the rest of the world's religions/moral systems too.

Iran is not exactly a theocracy though, on the other hand the idea in strongly present in their religious thought.
salaam

Your right about the IJma and people not applying it (which they should)

Furthermore it is possible for non muslims to implement there laws which do not conflict with the larger laws eg murder as you said which most religions agree with anyway.

Islamic governaces imposes itself as much as any other system of governance does.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-21-2009, 11:55 PM
[QUOTE=Zafran;1172721]
Not true at all - Multiculturalism does not mean that all religions are equal beacsue it the UK the state religion is still seen atleast on paper christainty - however people can live the way they want. A christain believes his religion is right and better - a muslim his and a sikh his etc - non of this people think there religions are equal in the UK atleast the majority dont and thats why they are in their faiths.
It completely doesnt matter what ordinary people think. What counts is that the state treats all religions in UK (in Spain, France, Holland) as equal. It means that no religion has priveliges and that all religions are equally supported by the state (or none is supported like in France). So multiculturalism ignores the 1000 years european tradition, its anti nature, and poisonous for Europe. And to be precise, I only blame europeans for that, because it was done by our own hands. I just want to persuade You, that You think about multiculturalism in wrong way. Multiculturalism is not a simple tolerance. Its a project which deliberately lies that England, Italy, France etc, are countries where there is no one dominating culture, but that the culture of hindus, muslims, jews and sikhs is as important and crucial as the culture of anglicanism,catholicism or protestantism.


Furthermore Muslims throughout the world had most of the time tolerated many faiths

- spain - Jews and christains were tolerated
- India - even Hindus were tolerated under the Mughals
- coptic christains in Egypt

I can go on and on to Indonesia and even Morroco where minorities are still there and tolerated.
Multiculturalism is not about tolerance. Tolerance is something natural and accepted. But look, the states of Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan don't promote other religions than islam. The states of these countries don't treat other religions equally to islam. And thats completely fine, thats natural and sane. All what I want to point is that the europeans lost the sane way and promote multiculturalism.

The only time europe actually had tolernace is in the modern times (right now) and when europe was ran by pagans - other then that i cant think of any other tolerant dealing with minorities or any other faiths?
In the old good times, before 1789, 1918 or the 60's in XX century(depends on what country we talk about), the religious minorities in Europe were treated very much as the dhimmis were treated in Khalifa. Which means that no one extreminated them, but they had to accept the christian character of the country. So they of course couldnt promote their faiths and run high posts in the state.

so do you believe that all other faiths should be exiled or eradicated?
No, read what I wrote upper.
Reply

Zafran
06-22-2009, 04:00 AM
[QUOTE=Amadeus85;1172776]
Originally Posted by Zafran

It completely doesnt matter what ordinary people think. What counts is that the state treats all religions in UK (in Spain, France, Holland) as equal. It means that no religion has priveliges and that all religions are equally supported by the state (or none is supported like in France). So multiculturalism ignores the 1000 years european tradition, its anti nature, and poisonous for Europe. And to be precise, I only blame europeans for that, because it was done by our own hands. I just want to persuade You, that You think about multiculturalism in wrong way. Multiculturalism is not a simple tolerance. Its a project which deliberately lies that England, Italy, France etc, are countries where there is no one dominating culture, but that the culture of hindus, muslims, jews and sikhs is as important and crucial as the culture of anglicanism,catholicism or protestantism.




Multiculturalism is not about tolerance. Tolerance is something natural and accepted. But look, the states of Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan don't promote other religions than islam. The states of these countries don't treat other religions equally to islam. And thats completely fine, thats natural and sane. All what I want to point is that the europeans lost the sane way and promote multiculturalism.



In the old good times, before 1789, 1918 or the 60's in XX century(depends on what country we talk about), the religious minorities in Europe were treated very much as the dhimmis were treated in Khalifa. Which means that no one extreminated them, but they had to accept the christian character of the country. So they of course couldnt promote their faiths and run high posts in the state.



No, read what I wrote upper.

Ive read your whole post and i have to say this is exactly what scares most europeans - Tolernace isnt natural! - chirstainty didnt accept many minorities - it didnt make them Dhmmi - it actually persecuted them or forced them to change religion - atleast before 1700s it isnt seen as the good old days - thats why people ran to america and europeans (most of them) are sacred of religion comming into politics - the focus on the split of church and state is due to christian europes past.

do morroco, and Egypt actually promote Islam - the government doesnt. There are privleges for Christainty in the UK which is deep rooted in christain culture. - I'll give you an example

1 - on BBC you have songs of praise on every Sunday which clearly shows what the UK is (atleast on paper) its christain - thats a privlege or shows what the people want

2 - When somebody gets crowned in the UK again its in church - not in some secular or other religous ceremony or place.

I'm sure spain still celebrates in public the kicking out of muslims (reconqustia) and the vatican still is independent and under the Pope can somebody make a mosque there - dont think so. There are still some clear privleges for christianty.

- but thanks to the modern world is far more tolerant/multicultural then christianty ever was - you didnt tolerate any other religion unless for the short term - In the Islamic world its a fact that they were tolerant (for there times) and in the future hopefully we can trump that.

Europe wasnt known for tolerance (atleast under christainty it wasnt - ask the Jews) until later.

You realy have misunderstood Tolerance/Multiculturalism.

The whole point christainty and religion in general is condemed in Europe because of christain europes sheer intolerant history - its left a bad mark on fellow europeans.
Reply

Thinker
06-22-2009, 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
No I dont agree, multiculturalism isn't just tolerating of religious and cultural minorities. Multiculturalism is agreeing that all cultures and religions are equal and neither is dominant.
I suggest that religion is not a culture within the definition of multiculturalism in the same way that Muslims are not a race within the defintion of racism i.e you can get different peoples with differenet cultures practicing the same religion and Muslims consist of many different races.
Reply

Thinker
06-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It is NOT an Islamic system. Shiites aren't recognized by main-stream Muslims of whom 85% are sunni, so how is it that you have drawn that conclusion? are you studied in Islamic jurisprudence?

all the best
Greetings respected Skye,

Taking aside the differences between Sunni and Shiite interpretations of Islamic teachings, is the fundamental model/system of governance employed in Iran a model you would expect to see in a Sunni Islamic state? If not can I know how it would differ?
Reply

alcurad
06-22-2009, 05:40 PM
^never, their model IS the main reason for the split.
Reply

جوري
06-22-2009, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Thinker
Greetings respected Skye,

Taking aside the differences between Sunni and Shiite interpretations of Islamic teachings, is the fundamental model/system of governance employed in Iran a model you would expect to see in a Sunni Islamic state? If not can I know how it would differ?
If you want to learn the model of proper Islamic governance then I'd look for (al-Khilafa ar-Rashida) as it in fact took place and wasn't some utopic place of being-- I can't imagine it too hard to purchase a book, as I have indeed already recommended you a book to read... did you purchase and read it?


all the best
Reply

salafy_masry
06-22-2009, 07:57 PM
Iran is nothing but lies ...
Reply

Zafran
06-22-2009, 08:00 PM
Originally Posted by salafy_masry
Iran is nothing but lies ...
salaam

you have to give them credit in history - Its a good thing they rose up against that puppet shah.

peace
Reply

salafy_masry
06-22-2009, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
salaam

you have to give them credit in history - Its a good thing they rose up against that puppet shah.

peace
Insutling Quran and Sunanh and claiming to be muslims .. is above history
Reply

Zafran
06-22-2009, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by salafy_masry
Insutling Quran and Sunanh and claiming to be muslims .. is above history
They dont insult the Quran.....anyway this talk is going off topic.
Reply

salafy_masry
06-22-2009, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
They dont insult the Quran.
Surely they do .. you have to follow up on the tafseer they make .. and what if they don;t and only insult that sunnah ? is that okay in islam ?

They lied on both quran and sunnah .. so they have reached the maximum level of lies .. they can easly lie about anything .. like history .. so lying is same as the air that they breath
Reply

Zafran
06-22-2009, 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by salafy_masry
Surely they do .. you have to follow up on the tafseer they make .. and what if they don;t and only insult that sunnah ? is that okay in islam ?

They lied on both quran and sunnah .. so they have reached the maximum level of lies .. they can easly lie about anything .. like history .. so lying is same as the air that they breath
They have there own views on the Quran and they actually have there own sunnah - you can call it a lie if you want -
Reply

salafy_masry
06-22-2009, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
They have there own views on the Quran and they actually have there own sunnah - you can call it a lie if you want -
well usually I don't .. I can't remember a muslim scholer who said other wise
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 09:40 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 10:32 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-03-2006, 04:20 PM
  5. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-06-2006, 09:00 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!