India Still Using Iran to Launch Spies into Pakistan

[I.R.A]

Pakistan can milk the heck out of KSA about this issue, lol.

In reality, Pakistan has its own Geo-political aims that it needs to follow, such as CPEC Gawadar and China is involved fully in it. In case of Chabahar, China itself is not much concerned. China will not damage its relations with Iran unless Chabahar poses a threat. Its better if Pakistan does not involve Russia in any issues with Iran. Pakistan should infact involve USA and make some deals with Israel ideally, but then again lets wait and see what IK does. As for Pakistan Military, they wouldnt want a new front opened with Iran. They would rather build a wall, install posts and end the cross border movement.

KSA suck at politics and geopolitics. They have seriously no real understanding of the threats and issues and how to proactively counter them, all that oil money has bought them lots of fat on brain cells.

Pakistan's problem is how to effectively neuter the domestic inclination towards and affiliation with Iran. China after Gawadar and CPEC becomes a party to any conflict that happens in Balochistan, but then again any harm to their interests can bring a lot of disruption in our relations with them.

 

[I.R.A]

The Karbala situation, like the situation with Uthman and Ali, were not black and white on a community level. Shia's like to make it seem like descendants of Mohammed had one agenda and Sahaba had one agenda which wasn't true in all those cases. Descendants of Mohammed and Sahaba did not all share same positions and were split on some matters. And not all descendants of Mohammed or Sahaba were really good people. Shia seem to think majority of humans can be like Prophet's which is not true for descendants of Mohammed or Sahaba. We believe first generation of Muslims are best generation of Muslims. And some of these problems involved second generation and so on. We do not believe ordinary humans are greatest Muslims, and that's why we look up to up Prophet's.

So I don't see need to continue going over these previous disputes. It's better to educate Muslims on reality that first generation and second generation of Muslims are still humans. The Prophets are humans too but they are better than the rest. And we have some exceptions like the first four Caliph's, some of the Prophet's descendants like Hassan, Hussein, and some of the exceptional Sahaba. When we are talking really exceptional Muslims(like how Shia think everyone is infallible), they are a very small number and very rare. When the Prophet(SAW), told us of righteous figures to show up in the community from his time to the end times, the only new one we know about is the Mahdi. Which from the Prophet time to now, is 1400 plus years and billions of people. And there is only one very exceptional person between them. And not every single person from Ahl Albayt like Shia seem to suggest.

And that person, like the Prophet's, are given free will. Means they made their choices in life and there was no advantage they were born with, like Shia suggest. Allah(SWT) knows the future and knew the people who will have made the better choices, it doesn't mean he didn't give humans fair shot and free will.

So I think we have done plenty of discussing these past affairs. And we learned Islam from the Prophet(SAW), and almost everything he emphasized was worship and obedience of Allah(SWT) and recognizing our creator. Since he created us to worship him and we will return to Allah(SWT) who is the 'real deal' if you will and he's behind the whole creation and whole Islam, and whole guidance of son of Adam, and fate of Son of Adam in afterlife. So look to him and recognize him is better than disputing little details in past events. Just because we don't see our Lord right now doesn't mean we should forget about him. He was there before us and will be there after us and we will meet him after death God willing on good terms.

I respectfully disagree with you about Sahaba and Imam Mahdi.

There was no dispute amongst Sahaba (as we are told), they were all closely knit united like brothers following their Ameer after Messenger Peace be upon him. When a system is in place and people are prospering, it takes not days but centuries for that system to fail, and that too only when people start disbelieving and going against its core values. Islam would have vanished right after departure of Messenger Peace be upon him, if Sahaba had fought like we are told. And if Muslims believe that Quran is for all the times, then it makes no sense for anyone else "chosen" to come to our rescue.

 

[Falcon29]

I respectfully disagree with you about Sahaba and Imam Mahdi.

There was no dispute amongst Sahaba (as we are told), they were all closely knit united like brothers following their Ameer after Messenger Peace be upon him. When a system is in place and people are prospering, it takes not days but centuries for that system to fail, and that too only when people start disbelieving and going against its core values. Islam would have vanished right after departure of Messenger Peace be upon him, if Sahaba had fought like we are told. And if Muslims believe that Quran is for all the times, then it makes no sense for anyone else "chosen" to come to our rescue.

There were some disputes and that's normal. Lots of them were due to select number of people causing confusion. And because communication was so different back then.

I did not say he will come rescue anyone. Although don't use your reasoning as justification to deny the Mahdi because he's real and will rule Arabs 7-9 years.

I was talking about overall character btw not sure if you understood my point about Shia perspective.

 

[I.R.A]

There were some disputes and that's normal. Lots of them were due to select number of people causing confusion. And because communication was so different back then.

Please list the nature of disputes.

Umar the Caliph removes a renowned General a brave soldier, a leader to his troops, a companion who wherever he goes brings victory for Islam and Muslims ........... and that soldier, that General doesn't react a bit. Khalid Bin Waleed.

So what exactly do you mean by there were disputes?

I did not say he will come rescue anyone. Although don't use your reasoning as justification to deny the Mahdi because he's real and will rule Arabs 7-9 years.

There is no Mahdi coming. Please, this fictional character has already led many into ignorance and has caused them to go astray.

Read about followers of Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Mirza Qadiyani ........ read what he claimed, and see what has that led to.

I was talking about overall character btw not sure if you understood my point about Shia perspective.

What is different between Sunnis and Shiites?

To inform you who you are speaking to ....., I call and consider Hazrat Yazeed Ameer ul Momineen. And Hazrat Hussain was killed by Persians in the dark of the night in Iraq Baghdad, same like his father Ali, Usman, Umer and Hassan.

 

[Falcon29]

Please list the nature of disputes.

Umar the Caliph removes a renowned General a brave soldier, a leader to his troops, a companion who wherever he goes brings victory for Islam and Muslims ........... and that soldier, that General doesn't react a bit. Khalid Bin Waleed.

So what exactly do you mean by there were disputes?



There is no Mahdi coming. Please, this fictional character has already led many into ignorance and has caused them to go astray.

Read about followers of Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Mirza Qadiyani ........ read what he claimed, and see what has that led to.




What is different between Sunnis and Shiites?

To inform you who you are speaking to ....., I call and consider Hazrat Yazeed Ameer ul Momineen. And Hazrat Hussain was killed by Persians in the dark of the night in Iraq Baghdad, same like his father Ali, Usman, Umer and Hassan.

I listed the three incidents of disputes. And I am a Sunni Muslim , mind you. Disputes don't mean Shia perspective on Islam is correct. On contrary , it makes their perspective much weaker.

The Mahdi will be a young Muslim born in end times sent to the Arabs to assist them. He's real and not the fake Shia one who they claim was a child 1400 years ago.

Sunni and Shia are very different. Why do you believe otherwise?

 

[I.R.A]

I listed the three incidents of disputes. And I am a Sunni Muslim , mind you. Disputes don't mean Shia perspective on Islam is correct. On contrary , it makes their perspective much weaker.

I am sorry I have skipped that list of three disputes, can you please point me to it?

The Mahdi will be a young Muslim born in end times sent to the Arabs to assist them. He's real and not the fake Shia one who they claim was a child 1400 years ago.

Sunni and Shia are very different. Why do you believe otherwise?

Because both of you believe in fiction, false history, distorted beliefs and nonsensical things. That is the blunt version. The detailed version requires lengthy post and your patience to read.

 

[Falcon29]

I am sorry I have skipped that list of three disputes, can you please point me to it?



Because both of you believe in fiction, false history, distorted beliefs and nonsensical things. That is the blunt version. The detailed version requires lengthy post and your patience to read.

You are one who brought up Karbala. So what were you intending?

And what are you if you aren't Sunni Muslim? Sunni Muslims are the original Muslims. Sunni Muslims do not believe in fiction and have very detailed rebuttals of Shia claims. And go through scientific process for that.

 

[I.R.A]

You are one who brought up Karbala. So what were you intending?

That is the starting point to dismantle all this false distorted history in both Shiite and Sunni accounts and traditions.

Both Sunni and Shiite believe Hazrat Yazeed and his army killed Hazrat Hussain ....... at Karbala ........ and both Shiite and Sunni have no logical answer to when contradictions in their books of history are shown to them.

And what are you if you aren't Sunni Muslim? Sunni Muslims are the original Muslims. Sunni Muslims do not believe in fiction and have very detailed rebuttals of Shia claims. And go through scientific process for that.

Was Messenger Peace be upon him Sunni? Were his companions Sunni? Were Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Moosa, Isa, Yousaf, Yaqoob and all of the rest Sunni? Or Muslims?

 

[Falcon29]

That is the starting point to dismantle all this false distorted history in both Shiite and Sunni accounts and traditions.

Both Sunni and Shiite believe Hazrat Yazeed and his army killed Hazrat Hussain ....... at Karbala ........ and both Shiite and Sunni have no logical answer to when contradictions in their books of history are shown to them.




Was Messenger Peace be upon him Sunni? Were his companions Sunni? Were Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Moosa, Isa, Yousaf, Yaqoob and all of the rest Sunni? Or Muslims?

I think you need to read more on Sunni scholar analysis of Karbala to understand what they believe first. And Sunni means Muslims following the Sunnah , which we learned from Mohammed and not anyone before him.

 

[I.R.A]

I think you need to read more on Sunni scholar analysis of Karbala to understand what they believe first. And Sunni means Muslims following the Sunnah , which we learned from Mohammed and not anyone before him.

Muhammad Peace be upon him wasn't following anything different than other Messengers of ALLAH. Siyam, Salaat even Hajj rituals.

I have read sunni scholars ........ they consider Hazrat Yazeed and his army killed Hazrat Hussain and most of his family members at Karbala. And I don't agree with that at all. Karbala never happened in the first place.

 

[Falcon29]

Muhammad Peace be upon him wasn't following anything different than other Messengers of ALLAH. Siyam, Salaat even Hajj rituals.

I have read sunni scholars ........ they consider Hazrat Yazeed and his army killed Hazrat Hussain and most of his family members at Karbala. And I don't agree with that at all. Karbala never happened in the first place.

Yes and he said: عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين من بعدي

I don't know which scholars you heard that from but this is the general view we have:

Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

 

[I.R.A]

Yes and he said: عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين من بعدي

I don't know which scholars you heard that from but this is the general view we have:

Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info

This is from the link you posted.


"His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.

Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr."

Yazeed wasn't appointed he was elected. The problem with this belief is that it portrays that Shabah had a weak character, because it says that they didn't object to Kingship, which is impossible. Plus Hazrat Yazeed's father was reluctant when Shabah told him to appoint a heir to Caliphate and insisted that it should be Yazeed. Yazeed's father didn't wish that, so a grand referendum was held where common people got to vote, the first ever biggest democratic selection.

Why Shabah recommended Yazeed to his father? It is already given the above mentioned account, if Yazeed was worthy of leading Muslim armies into a battlefield, the army which included people like Abu Ayub ....... then he must have had a solid character of a true Muslim, he must have had qualities worthy of leading.

As in regards to Yazeed killing Hussain, why would he wait for Hussain to reach Karbala, if Yazeed was so adamant to kill him, and given that he wasn't that good person than he would kill him anywhere well before Karbala. One thing

Second thing .......... Karbala is ahead of Kufa (the intended destination of Hussain), if Hussain intended to go to Kufa then what was he doing in Karbala?

Third thing .......... there were Hashmite women married to umayyads, close relatives of Hussain married to close relatives of Yazeed .... if Yazeed knowingly and intentionally killed Hussain ....... then why would those women remain in Nikkah of their enemies?

Fourth thing ........ Yazeed gave the best irrigation system. So he wasn't drunk incompetent loose character.

 

[Falcon29]

This is from the link you posted.


"His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.

Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr."

Yazeed wasn't appointed he was elected. The problem with this belief is that it portrays that Shabah had a weak character, because it says that they didn't object to Kingship, which is impossible. Plus Hazrat Yazeed's father was reluctant when Shabah told him to appoint a heir to Caliphate and insisted that it should be Yazeed. Yazeed's father didn't wish that, so a grand referendum was held where common people got to vote, the first ever biggest democratic selection.

Why Shabah recommended Yazeed to his father? It is already given the above mentioned account, if Yazeed was worthy of leading Muslim armies into a battlefield, the army which included people like Abu Ayub ....... then he must have had a solid character of a true Muslim, he must have had qualities worthy of leading.

As in regards to Yazeed killing Hussain, why would he wait for Hussain to reach Karbala, if Yazeed was so adamant to kill him, and given that he wasn't that good person than he would kill him anywhere well before Karbala. One thing

Second thing .......... Karbala is ahead of Kufa (the intended destination of Hussain), if Hussain intended to go to Kufa then what was he doing in Karbala?

Third thing .......... there were Hashmite women married to umayyads, close relatives of Hussain married to close relatives of Yazeed .... if Yazeed knowingly and intentionally killed Hussain ....... then why would those women remain in Nikkah of their enemies?

Fourth thing ........ Yazeed gave the best irrigation system. So he wasn't drunk incompetent loose character.

You ask too many questions(regarding this matter). That is brief overview, if you want extensive overview it is available online. I don't see it as important as you make it out to be. The scholars who studied the narrations/ahadeeth are better fit to explain life during the time of the 'Taba'een'.

I find it more important to focus on worshipping God instead of going over past events we already went over for no purpose.

 

[I.R.A]

I don't see it as important as you make it out to be.

You correct and remove Karbala ....... there go all those fairy tales of Iran being a holy place. You take away the very foundation on which they constructed their false religion.

 

[BATMAN]

And I am a Sunni Muslim

If you are a Sunni Muslim, than you shall not take anything beyond (Quran &) Sunna as din.