Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Lavochkin]

Thanks primarily to economic liberalization and political reforms promoted by clerical oligarchs, namely the likes of Rafsanjani and his proteges Khatami and Rouhani, that runs in counter to the original revolutionary "alms' economy". A move to the good, but I doubt the one that Shariati, a socialist, espoused.

Reinstall the Shah now :^)

Tbh the Shah wasn't preferable too. But better than what Iran is right now.

https://www.quora.com/Would-Iran-be-doi ... ed-in-1979

[Kyrusia]

https://www.facebook.com/DCStatesman/videos/vb.511928619002683/608376469357897/?type=2&theater
Hope this despicable, loathsome, fat subhuman gets thrown off the roof someday.

Free Rhenish States II: Considering your record, *** 2-week ban for trolling (advocating death). *** I strongly recommend you take time to read the rules and revise your behavior in the future. If you do not, we will be forced to decide whether to revoke your welcome to this website.

[Gondolaulus]

Reinstall the Shah now :^)

Tbh the Shah wasn't preferable too. But better than what Iran is right now.

https://www.quora.com/Would-Iran-be-doi ... ed-in-1979

Interesting perspective.

[Mahdistan]

Thanks primarily to economic liberalization and political reforms promoted by clerical oligarchs, namely the likes of Rafsanjani and his proteges Khatami and Rouhani, that runs in counter to the original revolutionary "alms' economy". A move to the good, but I doubt the one that Shariati, a socialist, espoused.

Reinstall the Shah now :^)

Tbh the Shah wasn't preferable too. But better than what Iran is right now.

The people have water, and the government is popular. All the Shah would be today is the same as he was before; a puppet for U.S. and European domination. There were more political prisoners in that day then there are now, and between that and the millions of Iranians lifted out of poverty because of the government's work, I'd say the revolution had been a success.

[Alsheb]

Reinstall the Shah now :^)

Tbh the Shah wasn't preferable too. But better than what Iran is right now.

The people have water, and the government is popular. All the Shah would be today is the same as he was before; a puppet for U.S. and European domination. There were more political prisoners in that day then there are now, and between that and the millions of Iranians lifted out of poverty because of the government's work, I'd say the revolution had been a success.

Agreed. For all its flaws, the Islamic Republic of Iran is most definitely a huge improvement over the old Empire. And dare I say one of the clearest examples of a significant rise in standard or living and quality of life since the Soviet Union and China.

[Gondolaulus]

Reinstall the Shah now :^)

Tbh the Shah wasn't preferable too. But better than what Iran is right now.

The people have water, and the government is popular. All the Shah would be today is the same as he was before; a puppet for U.S. and European domination. There were more political prisoners in that day then there are now, and between that and the millions of Iranians lifted out of poverty because of the government's work, I'd say the revolution had been a success.

In that economical sense it is good, but I think the people of Iran should have more personal liberties. And less influence of the Majis. In that sense I support Yousef Saanei.

[Gondolaulus]

That embarrassing moment that your adhan on the phone goes off in the bus.

[Alsheb]

That embarrassing moment that your adhan on the phone goes off in the bus.

You shouldn't feel embarrassed about that, brother. Sure, some narrow-minded people might freak out a bit (assuming you live in the West?). But there should be no embarrassment for what you believe in
Let the ignorant think what they want.

[Alsheb]

The people have water, and the government is popular. All the Shah would be today is the same as he was before; a puppet for U.S. and European domination. There were more political prisoners in that day then there are now, and between that and the millions of Iranians lifted out of poverty because of the government's work, I'd say the revolution had been a success.

In that economical sense it is good, but I think the people of Iran should have more personal liberties. And less influence of the Majis. In that sense I support Yousef Saanei.

Grand Ayatollah Saanei is definitely a religious authority figure worthy of respect and following. It may be surprising, but there are quite some senior Shia clerics that are quite progressive, tolerant and solidly embedded orthodox Shia teaching.

In fact, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is widely considered the most authoritative cleric in all of Twelver Islam, is such a figure, notable for issuing fatwas on the necessity of democracy and gender equality.

It will be interesting to see who shall take the mantle of Supreme Leader after the passing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That will determine a great deal.

[Gondolaulus]

That embarrassing moment that your adhan on the phone goes off in the bus.

You shouldn't feel embarrassed about that, brother. Sure, some narrow-minded people might freak out a bit (assuming you live in the West?). But there should be no embarrassment for what you believe in
Let the ignorant think what they want.

I live in the Netherlands

In that economical sense it is good, but I think the people of Iran should have more personal liberties. And less influence of the Majis. In that sense I support Yousef Saanei.

Grand Ayatollah Saanei is definitely a religious authority figure worthy of respect and following. It may be surprising, but there are quite some senior Shia clerics that are quite progressive, tolerant and solidly embedded orthodox Shia teaching.

In fact, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is widely considered the most authoritative cleric in all of Twelver Islam, is such a figure, notable for issuing fatwas on the necessity of democracy and gender equality.

It will be interesting to see who shall take the mantle of Supreme Leader after the passing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That will determine a great deal.

Saanei is mij Majli. Buut he is not part anymore of the Embodiment of ''something'' since 2010. He still is an Ayatollah AFAIK. Nevertheless he deserves great respect.

Sistani is a bit strict for IMHO. Forbidding to sit at a table with alcohol, which is pretty awkward as the only Muslim family member. You can imagine the problem during family meetings.

[Islamic Government]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

Am I too presume that you have a proper understanding as to what this "True face" is? I'd hardly consider this to be the west's "True Face" , I'd identify it as change in opinion; perhaps constant bombings and attacks by Muslim Extremists has finally taken its toll on the West and it's opinion of the Islamic religion. The West (As far as I am aware) doesn't take kindly to being constantly attacked.

[Islamic Government]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

Am I too presume that you have a proper understanding as to what this "True face" is? I'd hardly consider this to be the west's "True Face" , I'd identify it as change in opinion; perhaps constant bombings and attacks by Muslim Extremists has finally taken its toll on the West. The West (As far as I am aware) doesn't take kindly to being constantly attacked.

You know, you crusaders are the typical example of the person who throws the stone and hides his hand, and then complains and whines if someone else reacts by throwing a stone at him the same way.

[Islamic Government]

Muslims don't need the USA anyway, they shouldn't even live there as it is Dar ul Harb.

[Philjia]

Muslims don't need the USA anyway, they shouldn't even live there as it is Dar ul Harb.

The areas of the world currently under Islamic law are not large enough to comfortably accommodate all one billion Muslims.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

You know, you crusaders are the typical example of the person who throws the stone and hides his hand, and then complains and whines if someone else reacts by throwing a stone at him the same way.

Crusader? I am not a Christian fundamentalist in any sense of the word, in fact I'm a Classical Liberal; you must mean it in a different sense. By throwing stones should I assume that you are referring to some kind of incident, the Invasion of Iran perhaps? Which if I am not mistaken was thought to be a operation to secure weapons of mass destruction (Which were never found if I recall) along with putting down a dictatorship. A number of other incidents orchestrated by the USA may be the stone in which you accuse us of throwing. Except if am not mistaken this stone that has been thrown towards the USA should be aimed towards the American government and military, rather than their people. By stupidly targeting the American people you (Islamic terror groups that is) have inadvertently fanned the flames of hatred and caused what has happened now. Now I advise you attack the argument rather than the person, we wouldn't want you getting banned now would we?

[Islamic Government]

You know, you crusaders are the typical example of the person who throws the stone and hides his hand, and then complains and whines if someone else reacts by throwing a stone at him the same way.

Crusader? I am not a Christian fundamentalist in any sense of the word, in fact I'm a Classical Liberal; you must mean it in a different sense. By throwing stones should I assume that you are referring to some kind of incident, the Invasion of Iran perhaps? Which if I am not mistaken was thought to be a operation to secure weapons of mass destruction (Which were never found if I recall) along with putting down a dictatorship. A number of other incidents orchestrated by the USA may be the stone in which you accuse us of throwing. Except if am not mistaken this stone that has been thrown towards the USA should be aimed towards the American government and military, rather than their people. By stupidly targeting the American people you (Islamic terror groups that is) have inadvertently fanned the flames of hatred and caused what has happened now. Now I advise you attack the argument rather than the person, we wouldn't want you getting banned now would we?

Targeting people is a common war tactic that has been widely used by many governments, including the USA (what would you call the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden? Or Fallujah? They were aimed at spreading fear in the heart of the enemy to make him surrender).

Oh, and your ban threats don't frighten me in the least.

[Alsheb]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

I wouldn't rejoice in it, as it is a quite terrible thing for basically everyone involved. But yes, it does show the US policy towards Muslims quite clearly. The advantage of Trump is that he is terrible at masquerading who he really is, whereas Obama was a master of disguise, pretending to care about Muslims while bombing them every single day for eight years straight.

[Islamic Government]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

The advantage of Trump is that he is terrible at masquerading who he really is, whereas Obama was a master of disguise, pretending to care about Muslims while bombing them every single day for eight years straight.

I agree with you on this one.

[Philjia]

I'm actually very happy that Trump is going to ban Muslims from the USA. I hope European leaders will follow his path.

Finally the true face of the West is becoming evident and Muslims will not be fooled anymore....

I wouldn't rejoice in it, as it is a quite terrible thing for basically everyone involved. But yes, it does show the US policy towards Muslims quite clearly. The advantage of Trump is that he is terrible at masquerading who he really is, whereas Obama was a master of disguise, pretending to care about Muslims while bombing them every single day for eight years straight.

He even convinced huge numbers of Republicans that he secretly was one.

[Alsheb]

I wouldn't rejoice in it, as it is a quite terrible thing for basically everyone involved. But yes, it does show the US policy towards Muslims quite clearly. The advantage of Trump is that he is terrible at masquerading who he really is, whereas Obama was a master of disguise, pretending to care about Muslims while bombing them every single day for eight years straight.

He even convinced huge numbers of Republicans that he secretly was one.

Leading to the hilarious message from Tommi Lahren that she feld the US was blessed by having a "man of God" in the Oval Office again. Assuming she means "Christian", that is quite laughable.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Targeting people is a common war tactic that has been widely used by many governments, including the USA (what would you call the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden? Or Fallujah? They were aimed at spreading fear in the heart of the enemy to make him surrender).

I'd call Hiroshima a desperate attempt to end a war in which had already claimed 60 million lives. Ultimately I could argue that if they hadn't dropped the Atomic bombs there would have been more casualties than what the result of dropping Fat Man and Little Boy would have been. I wouldn't deny that targeting the people may be a valid option should it save more lives.

Oh, and your ban threats don't frighten me in the least.

It wasn't a threat, it was merely a warning. You will be warned or even banned if the mods were to catch you attacking the person instead of the argument. I don't like reporting unless I'm a outside third party.

[Islamic Government]

Targeting people is a common war tactic that has been widely used by many governments, including the USA (what would you call the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden? Or Fallujah? They were aimed at spreading fear in the heart of the enemy to make him surrender).

I'd call Hiroshima a desperate attempt to end a war in which had already claimed 60 million lives. Ultimately I could argue that if they hadn't dropped the Atomic bombs there would have been more casualties than what the result of dropping Fat Man and Little Boy would have been. I wouldn't deny that targeting the people may be a valid option should it save more lives.

Well I could argue that killing Christian civilians can save thousands of Muslim lives, if it can make the Western governments surrender.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Well I could argue that killing Christian civilians can save thousands of Muslim lives, if it can make the Western governments surrender.

And I could argue that in attacking civilians (considering not all killed are Christians) is just enraging the populace causing more Muslim lives to be lost. This sequence of arguments is like a circle in a way. I will admit that you make a good point, I do believe that Islamic Extremists aren't scaring the West into submission however, they simply don't have the firepower to scare the west.

Anyhow I wish not to continue as I do not have the time and this argument is quite circler in reasoning, we are basically arguing who could scare who into submission and which one would cost less lives.

[Islamic Government]

Well I could argue that killing Christian civilians can save thousands of Muslim lives, if it can make the Western governments surrender.

And I could argue that in attacking civilians (considering not all killed are Christians) is just enraging the populace causing more Muslim lives to be lost. This seqence of arguments is like a circle in a way. I will admit that you make a good point, I do believe that Islamic Extremists aren't scaring the West into submission however, they simply don't have the firepower to scare the west.

An "enraged populace" is not a relevant factor in a war. However, if you kill enough they could make pressure on their governments to stop the military involvement in Muslim lands.

Were Americans "enraged" when America started the First Gulf War in the early 1990s?