[MYMcvBgl]

Some folk on here are so caught-up in their little factional Sunni Vs Shia mindsets, they seem to forget the US and Israel have successfully played Sunni's against Shi'as in the region before. It was called the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was armed-up heavily by the West and Russia, to the point it was believed he had the fourth most powerful mechanised army in the world. He was supported AND funded by the Gulf Sunni rulers to attack Iran and retake the entire Shatt-Al-Arab waterways, which was and still is Iranian soveriegn territory. That was an appalling decision, because the Iranians actually fought back and did not stop resisting Saddam's invasion. A truce and peace agreement ended the conflict some 8 years after it had begun. Saddam was forced into humiliating retreat. His army battered, the funds Iraq was given by the Gulf arabs were now being called in - to Saddam's fury. To add insult to injury, the Gulf arabs, particularly Kuwait, then started pumping far more oil than the market needed and there followed a slump in global oil prices, thus reducing Iraq's much-needed oil income. Unfortunately, the Americans played him, the Sunni Gulf rulers stood-by with the Americans and watched, Israel was on the floor laughing. A once rich nation was led to ruin by a hardline dictator in a war that was never going to be won. Its regional neighboors (brotherly nations) gave it the cold shoulder and stabbed it in the back at its most needy hour. Debt-laden Saddam's Iraq had few options and soon after he found himself in another war, against Kuwait, after what he believed was a US greenlight for his invasion. He was skillfully ensnared into the perfect trap. Then the first Iraq war happened - the rest is history.

sigh....

- we have said time and time again that we are not anti Iranian. We are anti shi'a because of the aqeedah issue. Indeed Iran region has in the past produced many well known ulama that are dear to the Sunni Muslims. However we won't tolerate the twelvers shi'a as they have distorted the Aqeedah of the Muslims to an extreme level.

Two wrongs won't make a right. And we stand firm on aqeedah issue.

- Saddam invasion wasn't done because of Islam. It was done because of Baath/Arab nationalism.

It is exactly this 'divide and rule' tactic which they have successfully employed on a number of occasions now and will continue to do in the future. The question is whether Sunni's will be daft enough to actually fall for it yet again and allow Israel to come clean off the hook. Make no mistake, Israel is the only nation that benefits from these Sunni/Shia wars. The sooner Sunni's can accept that the Gulf Arabs states are acting in concert with Un-Islamic, external interests, we will be one step further to understanding what needs to be done for the better.

- This is a well known fact about Arab political leaders. Hence the Arab Spring. And majority of the populations want to have an Islamic system to be properly implemented. So no, sunni Muslims didn't just sit quiet and allow their corrupted political leaders to play them around. And we will do whatever we can to protect the sacred aqeedah that we are blessed with by Allah

- Takfiri done by scholars against shi'a are not without warrants. The takfiris were very clear and complete with proofs. When those ayatollahs are zindiqs, then the laymen Muslims should be warned about them. And if these ayatollahs are caught and put on trial in an Islamic court, then an Islamic punishment shall be executed should every condition is met and proven.

So if you prefer to have "peace" with groups that have clearly distorted Islam, then that's your decision. Just don't be surprised at the kind of "olive leaf" that the shi'a twelvers ayatollah extend to the sunnis. As for us, no compromise on the Aqeedah issue.

[XinordiX]

We're not anti-Iranian at all.
I'm actually a huge lover of Iranian civilization in its widest reach (basically the whole of Muslim Asian countries are deeply affected by Islamic Iranian civilization, and there was also some influence in the Eastern African coasts).

But we're anti-Shi'ah.
Confusing Shi'aism kufr with Iranian people is an insult not just to Sunni Iranian Muslims, but also to the history of Iran, which has remained a Sunni Muslim country for centuries, before Shiaism has only quite recently been forced upon its population by Safavid Kuffar rulers.

It is true that we are anti-Shia but some of the earlier comments were a bit unbalanced and quite accusatory.

[Nutpoode]

faizol,


"Saddam invasion wasn't done because of Islam. It was done because of Baath/Arab nationalism"


Encouraged and funded by which parties in particular - US, Israel and er... the Sunni Gulf Arab nations. It would have made not a fathom of difference to them if it was Baathism or Sunni Islamism, what they wanted was major war against the so-called 'Islamic Revolution' (albeit a Shia Islamic Revolution) where Iranians overthrew the dictatorial Shah - in the process of that war, almost a million people were killed and maimed on both sides and both suffered the appalling financial consequences. The ultimate losers were Muslims and regional countries who were and still are neighboors.

Certain elements within Shia Islam are correctly described as Zindiq. However, going on their track record, they are by far the lesser threat. They are neighboors and there should be another medium to negotiate any disagreements with them. Not blindly walk into wars, wipped with Sunni/Shia hate talk. It is exactly what US/Israel would like to see. This will only sow discord and hate amongst Muslims and their neighboors.

This is not the Shia vs Sunni issue that some make it out to be. It is countries that are deliberately and very skillfully led into wars, that are unwinnable, disastrously damaging to their economies and leave Israel in the position it wants to be in - watch two problems turn on each other, fan the flames and let them destroy one another.

The greatest threat in the region is the US/Israel and the Gulf Arabs nations - due to their full compliance with US and Israeli interests. It is no surprise the US is currently pursuing a 'two-faced' approach whereby it is cheering and supporting the downfall of certain Arab leaders while backing and further Arming a number of the others (Saudi, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar). It nothing more than a shuffling of a deck of cards, some dictators get to stay and others who are a little more independent from US/Israeli policy will have to go under the auspices of the 'Arab Spring'. The US can fool us once, not everytime.

The US is currently agreeing a $60billion arms contract just for Saudi-Arabia - how does that help the overthrow of the crony and corrupt Al-Saud monarchy?

My essential point is that we should avoid wars against other Muslim groups (even remotely considered or not) and focus on the real problem amongst our own.


Allahu A'lam

[ZZtop]

Allahu A'lam

@MSZN85...mashallah bro. well said and finally someone with sense and obejectivness. you have made excellent points and stressed the importance of the US/Israel conspiracy to keep the sunnis fighting shia's while the saudi's and the west continue to remain in power.

i dont agree with shia beliefs as most shia laymen dont know about their beliefs fully, however we need to educate them and words of wisdom and reasoning. if we just carry on swearing and cursing them, then this will not get us anywhere. Unfortunatly, most of our sunni brothers dont think like this have fallen for this wahabi/israeli agenda.

To be honest, most people on this forum hate Iran so much that no matter what you say, they will just carry on their hate campaign (doing the dirty work for the saudi's and the west) and your words will fall on deaf ears. i just wish there were more people like you bro who have woken up to this reality.

[AntonioXYZ]

brother MSZN85 and brother Oblivion,

Like I said before, two wrongs won't make a right. My opinion is to always sided with the haq, coz the outcome is clear, either successfully uphold the Words of Allah , or syaheed in the process .

We can't afford to support the ayatollah institutions in Iran because of their corruptions of the deen. And I am concerned about the Sunnis in Iran from these two monsters from both ends. If nothing is done towards the ayatollah institutions with their corrupted shi'ism, then the sunnis will continue to suffer under the regime and the masses will continue to be led astray by them. Meaning that regarding the corrupted ayatollah institutions in Iran, it'll be very hard to agree with them unless they put away the corruption within the deen, only then we are obliged to support them. And regarding the sunni politicians who are in bed with the US/Israel, we have to be patient even if the politicians take away our rights as we are told not to revolt unless the leaders/politicians are clear cut kufr.

Also regarding the nuclear Iran, we have to take into account the opinions of these ayatollahs towards the sunnis. If they consider the sunnis as non-believers (as some of the most influential ayatollahs openly declared), then letting them to have nuclear weapons would be detrimental towards the safety of the ummah. As israel already has nuclear weapons, we must not let another enemy of the sunnis to also have an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

the time will come for the ummah to rise up again. We never knew the intricate details of the plans laid out by Allah that will take place but we must put our trust in Allah 100% as the Beloved Prophet already told us about these coming events. And during these moments, we don't have any choice but to always stay with the haq.

Allah Knows best.

[Knongargoapex]

@brother faizol. in bold are you statements, followed by my replies. i dont know how to multi quote !

you said regarding the sunni politicians who are in bed with the US/Israel, we have to be patient even if the politicians take away our rights as we are told not to revolt unless the leaders/politicians are clear cut kufr.

you want us to be patient agaisnt out leaders or are clearly opressive, not following the quran and sunnah and blatantly not commiting injustice after injustice?. those who do not judge by what allah has revealed are the unbelivers. are those those who befriend the jews and christians and seek help from them, not commiting kufr? those who allow the kufar into the holy land to wage war against muslim countries. you want us to simply remain patient? does allah not say that allah will not help the people until they help themselves first?

Nowhere does it say we need to be patient against our leaders just because some weak hadith (made up by the unjust rulers in the past for themselves to justify their position) tells us not to rise up until they commit open kufr. If that is the case, then imam hussain (r.a) should not have risen up against yazid.

Since the saudis and the usa/israel know your and most other muslims mentallity and know this hadith exists, they can then setup any hypocriyte in disguise to rule the holy lands and call himself a muslim but all he has to do is not commit open kufr and they know you can't uprise against that ruler and have to just remain patient. so they will continue to use that hadith all the time, setting up one ruler after another and know you CAN'T uprise agaisnt them until they are commiting open kufr as you claim.

you said Also regarding the nuclear Iran, we have to take into account the opinions of these ayatollahs towards the sunnis. If they consider the sunnis as non-believers (as some of the most influential ayatollahs openly declared), then letting them to have nuclear weapons would be detrimental towards the safety of the ummah. As israel already has nuclear weapons, we must not let another enemy of the sunnis to also have an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

You need to get fact right here. We have extremists on both sides here. i can quote you lots of high ranking shia scholars who consider sunnis are brothers. dont tell me that they are ALL lying about this. also there our sunni alims who see shia's as non-beleivers to and they would love to nuke iran. you have to be fair brother and look at it from a neutral angle and not to let prejudice get in the way.

the time will come for the ummah to rise up again.

this time will NEVER come unless you change you thinking and attitude. you can be in dream land for 100's of years to come and the situation will not change as my comments show above and stop falling for this zionist/wahabi agenda. may allah guide us all.

Allah Knows best.[/QUOTE]

[RaicickKida]

you want us to be patient agaisnt out leaders or are clearly opressive, not following the quran and sunnah and blatantly not commiting injustice after injustice?. those who do not judge by what allah has revealed are the unbelivers. are those those who befriend the jews and christians and seek help from them, not commiting kufr? those who allow the kufar into the holy land to wage war against muslim countries. you want us to simply remain patient? does allah not say that allah will not help the people until they help themselves first?

regarding your statement, those who do not judge by what allah has revealed are the unbelivers. are those those who befriend the jews and christians and seek help from them, not commiting kufr? Can you declare openly, which of the current leaders of the Muslim nations are clear cut kufr from what you're quoting (the one that I underlined)?

Nowhere does it say we need to be patient against our leaders just because some weak hadith (made up by the unjust rulers in the past for themselves to justify their position) tells us not to rise up until they commit open kufr. If that is the case, then imam hussain (r.a) should not have risen up against yazid.

There are two issues here;

1) Weak hadith. Do you have a clear textual reference that you can back it up? If so, please share it with all the members here.
2) imam hussain (r.a) and yazid. Are we in the same situation as Imam Hussain ? You should also realize that Yazid massacred the Muslims in the two blessed cities. Are we in that situation now to draw that parallel?

Since the saudis and the usa/israel know your and most other muslims mentallity and know this hadith exists, they can then setup any hypocriyte in disguise to rule the holy lands and call himself a muslim but all he has to do is not commit open kufr and they know you can't uprise against that ruler and have to just remain patient. so they will continue to use that hadith all the time, setting up one ruler after another and know you CAN'T uprise agaisnt them until they are commiting open kufr as you claim.

brother, we can't speculate something we don't know. Regardless if the leaders will use the hadith to their advantage or not (Gaddafi did use the hadith against the rebels), their actions speak louder than what they declare. If the leaders really gave their efforts to implement sharia law as commanded in the Quran and shown by the Prophet , then the people would know that the leaders were sincere when quoting the hadith. But one thing for sure we can't judge the grey areas if we don't have full knowledge of what actually happened.

You need to get fact right here. We have extremists on both sides here. i can quote you lots of high ranking shia scholars who consider sunnis are brothers. dont tell me that they are ALL lying about this. also there our sunni alims who see shia's as non-beleivers to and they would love to nuke iran. you have to be fair brother and look at it from a neutral angle and not to let prejudice get in the way.

Again, actions speak louder than words. If so, perhaps the high ranking shia scholars can at least allow the suunis in Tehran for example, to build sunni mosques? I'm sure you do know that currently in Tehran alone there are over 100 mosques, and none of them is a sunni mosque.

this time will NEVER come unless you change you thinking and attitude. you can be in dream land for 100's of years to come and the situation will not change as my comments show above and stop falling for this zionist/wahabi agenda. may allah guide us all.

You have to differentiate between being cautious and dreaming. Since there are many fitna nowadays as foretold by the Prophet , then every Muslim should be cautious as to when to rise up in a violent struggle. There are a few factors in that (among others);
1) We are given a chance to live just once on this Earth, so we have to make sure that when we wage jihad, the jihad is a valid one. For example, every scholar and Muslim agree that the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya among other places are jihad. If the shaaria law can be implemented without a necessary arm struggle, then we should pursue that course (for example, maybe in Egypt? - ).

2) If every of us would resort to violence everytime we dislike a ruler, there would be chaos especially within tribal society which is prevalent in the Arab communities. A hadith of not to resort to violence unless a ruler is a clear cut kufr has so many hikmah in this regard.


Allah Knows best.

[fubyFrery]

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel does not want to take military action against Iran over its nuclear program, but at some point may have no other option, Israel's defense minister said Thursday.

At this point, Israel does not intend to launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities but it retains the option as a "last resort," Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio.

"We don't need unnecessary wars. But we definitely might be put to the test," he said. "The non-diplomatic point is a last resort. The fact that all options are on the table is agreed upon by everybody."

Barak said he hoped that sanctions and diplomacy would pressure the Iranian leadership to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program, but said he does not expect that to happen.

Israel, like the West, suspects Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, despite Tehran's insistence that its nuclear program is designed to produce energy.

Israel says a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the Jewish state's survival, citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated references to Israel's destruction, Iran's arsenal of ballistic missiles and its support for militant groups that fight Israel.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/inter...in057000c.html

[Oberjej]

Are we in the same situation as Imam Hussain ? You should also realize that Yazid massacred the Muslims in the two blessed cities. Are we in that situation now to draw that parallel? Allah Knows best.

Well you need to re-check the facts about imam hussain (r.a) again brother. look up history again and that fact is you will realise that imam hussain (r.a) rose up against yazid BEFORE yazid attacked mecca and medina.

[DoctorQuquriramba]

Well you need to re-check the facts about imam hussain (r.a) again brother. look up history again and that fact is you will realise that imam hussain (r.a) rose up against yazid BEFORE yazid attacked mecca and medina.

maybe you change your maZHAB..

[Nemerov]

maybe you change your maZHAB..

what do you mean, you want me to become shafi'i ? please explain ?

[vioppyskype]

Well you need to re-check the facts about imam hussain (r.a) again brother. look up history again and that fact is you will realise that imam hussain (r.a) rose up against yazid BEFORE yazid attacked mecca and medina.

brother,

please reread my reply to you (I will quote my previous reply);
2) imam hussain (r.a) and yazid. Are we in the same situation as Imam Hussain ? You should also realize that Yazid massacred the Muslims in the two blessed cities. Are we in that situation now to draw that parallel?
1. There's no mention that the massacre of the people of Mecca and Medina happened before the karbala in my reply.

2. My point was regarding to your statement that "If that is the case, then imam hussain (r.a) should not have risen up against yazid" because according to you "Nowhere does it say we need to be patient against our leaders just because some weak hadith (made up by the unjust rulers in the past for themselves to justify their position) tells us not to rise up until they commit open kufr".

Are we in the same situation as during the case of Yazid? Are we in the same situation where majority of people didn't want to give ba'iyah to the ruler as in the case of Yazid? Also do we have a ruler with the same transgressions level done by Yazid? Yes the current rulers are not perfect. Most of them are usurping the resources belonging to the ummah for their personal wealth while neglecting the Laws of Allah , not to mention how oppressive they are. But once ba'iyah is given, you can't just simply withdrew it without any valid strong reason.

As per your statement that the weak hadith about not revolting until open kufr is committed that's made up by the unjust past rulers, the onus is on you to provide back up to proof your claim. If you're right, then many people will learn something from this. But if you're wrong then that's a lesson learnt and hopefully we won't make the same mistakes again in the future.

Allah Knows best.

[Edifsdubs]

brother,

please reread my reply to you (I will quote my previous reply);
2) imam hussain (r.a) and yazid. Are we in the same situation as Imam Hussain ? You should also realize that Yazid massacred the Muslims in the two blessed cities. Are we in that situation now to draw that parallel?
1. There's no mention that the massacre of the people of Mecca and Medina happened before the karbala in my reply.

2. My point was regarding to your statement that "If that is the case, then imam hussain (r.a) should not have risen up against yazid" because according to you "Nowhere does it say we need to be patient against our leaders just because some weak hadith (made up by the unjust rulers in the past for themselves to justify their position) tells us not to rise up until they commit open kufr".

Are we in the same situation as during the case of Yazid? Are we in the same situation where majority of people didn't want to give ba'iyah to the ruler as in the case of Yazid? Also do we have a ruler with the same transgressions level done by Yazid? Yes the current rulers are not perfect. Most of them are usurping the resources belonging to the ummah for their personal wealth while neglecting the Laws of Allah , not to mention how oppressive they are. But once ba'iyah is given, you can't just simply withdrew it without any valid strong reason.

As per your statement that the weak hadith about not revolting until open kufr is committed that's made up by the unjust past rulers, the onus is on you to provide back up to proof your claim. If you're right, then many people will learn something from this. But if you're wrong then that's a lesson learnt and hopefully we won't make the same mistakes again in the future.

Allah Knows best.

maybe i didnt make my point clear to you brother. its a known fact that the battle of karbala happened BEFORE the attacks of mecca and medina by yazid. ask your scholar or refer to history books. why did imam hussain (r.a) rise up against yazid when he had not yet attacked medina and mecca ? so this a a proof in itself to show that the hadith is weak otherwise imam hussain (r.a) would not have risen up against yazid.

this hadith gives the green light to the west (and the enemies of islam know this hadith very well) to install their puppet leader and all he needs to do is claim to be a muslim and not commit open kufr, so he can remin in power. he could be a devil is disguise and we wont be able to do anything. so a lader after a leader will be placed on our heads and we have to just remain patient because of that hadith? i am sorry brother, i i think there is something seriously wrong here.

also if you look at history, there have been many revolts against unjust rules (some succussful, others not) and even the saud family itself rose up agsint the ottoman empire to establish thier illigitmate kingdom.

[sallythetolly]

maybe i didnt make my point clear to you brother. its a known fact that the battle of karbala happened BEFORE the attacks of mecca and medina by yazid. ask your scholar or refer to history books. why did imam hussain (r.a) rise up against yazid when he had not yet attacked medina and mecca ? so this a a proof in itself to show that the hadith is weak otherwise imam hussain (r.a) would not have risen up against yazid.

sigh,

brother, I didn't mention that Karbala happened after Mecca or Medina was attacked. Ok, let me rephrase it. Show me where I said Karbala happened AFTER the attacks on Mecca and Medina?

We all know that Imam Hussein and many other Prophet 's companions refused to give ba'iyah to Yazid as he was not selected by the shura council, among many other reasons. So I'll ask you again, show us where the parallel is happening right now with regards to the case of Imam Hussein ?

also if you look at history, there have been many revolts against unjust rules (some succussful, others not) and even the saud family itself rose up agsint the ottoman empire to establish thier illigitmate kingdom.

Honestly, it would be different if I lived during that time then I most probably be obliged to take part in defending the Khilafat. But the era has gone, and once a ruler is established and ba'iyah is given, then we have to follow the hadith as instructed by the Prophet . Unless if you can prove without any doubts that the hadith was fabricated like what you claimed. Then we might have a different discussion.

[Solo3uc4]

faizol

"But the era has gone, and once a ruler is established and ba'iyah is given, then we have to follow the hadith as instructed by the Prophet . Unless if you can prove without any doubts that the hadith was fabricated like what you claimed"

Good point and very true. I think discussion has detracted somewhat from what the thread was set-up for. The point I was trying to emphasize was, even with those groups who do not share the same Aqa'id as us, we need to be able to talk or negotiate our problems with them without resorting to conflict and especially not because of some 'special intelligence' which later on turns out to be nothing more than baseless assertions ala Iraq War and WMD and 45minute weapons claims etc.

Shockingly, the barefaced liars of the Iraq war are now spreading accusations about Iran's nuclear programme, the most monitored Nuclear programme in the world, claiming the Iranians are using it to secretly build Nuclear weapons. Once again, they provide ZERO verifiable evidence for their claims and again, nothing but absolutely baseless accusations (which even most members of the international atomic energy agency 'IAEA' have discredited). The key evidence they keep on refering to (which is not even new) is on a laptop handed in by some dissident group which none other than US intelligence have seen - very similar to the claims about Saddams weapons and intelligence from defectors that nobody other than intelligence services has scrutinised.

The US will not talk much about is the fact, America were the ones who started the Iranian nuclear programme back in the 1950's with the Shah. They realised that for a country of Iran's size and population, it will need nuclear power as its 'shallow' oil reserves run-out and only deep, difficult and expensive low-quality oil remains. What is even more of a slap in the face is the sanctions the US imposes on any company that does over $20million business with Iran, they are barred from trading in the US. Due to this, the big multinationals like Shell and Total etc, who have some the best technology to develop deep and difficult oil reserves are prevented from going into Iran and helping them with technology and know-how. You cannot even drill a deep well for $20million, recently an oil well just next door in Iraqi Kurdistan cost over $50million to drill. Can you understand how the US uses its sanctions to prevent a country from developing, can you understand why a country maybe forced to turn to nuclear energy as it does not have the know-how to tap its own resources and foreign companies are virtually prevented from coming in with trhe right technology too.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferations treaty 'NPT' and is firmly in the spotlight over its nuclear issues. Israel is not a signatory and is widely believed to be the only Mid-East country with a nuclear weapons arsenal - yet it gets no pressure whatsoever from US/Europe and the Arabs do little either. To their credit, some Gulf nations, Iran, Syria & Lebanon did raise the issue of a nuclear-weapons free mid-east a year or two ago. That it must include Israel, this proposal was immediately hounded-down by the US and the Gulf rulers simply shut-up and said no more. Iran's nuclear energy industry is no threat to the Gulf Arabs, this is a figment implanted by tedious outsiders to keep the region in a constant state of tension. Iran has even said it is willing to share and help regional nations develop the same technology. Do you know who it really threatens? .....Israel and the US. As the Arabs realise they do not need the US and its military anymore, you can only imagine how worried US and Israeli leaders would be, fearing for their position and interests in the region.

My worry is, at this time, because the Sunni Gulf rulers are not independent of the US/Israel in their policy and decision making, it will lead to further conflict which will weaken Sunni's, Shia and other groups who get caught up in the strife. Conflict should always be a last resort and a very difficult decision. It seems they are willingly living by the sword. They should remember, they are ok as long as they take care of their masters interests, once the oil starts running low, they'll realise how they have been used. they will face a fate similar to the dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi.


Allahu A'lam

[ariniaxia]

MSZN85,

Your messages were highly informative.

How do you see the role of Turkey in the Middle-East?

From reading the history properly, what would be your solution for the ultimate peace in the region?

[uMG6uOSo]

faizol

"But the era has gone, and once a ruler is established and ba'iyah is given, then we have to follow the hadith as instructed by the Prophet . Unless if you can prove without any doubts that the hadith was fabricated like what you claimed"

Good point and very true. I think discussion has detracted somewhat from what the thread was set-up for. The point I was trying to emphasize was, even with those groups who do not share the same Aqa'id as us, we need to be able to talk or negotiate our problems with them without resorting to conflict and especially not because of some 'special intelligence' which later on turns out to be nothing more than baseless assertions ala Iraq War and WMD and 45minute weapons claims etc.

Shockingly, the barefaced liars of the Iraq war are now spreading accusations about Iran's nuclear programme, the most monitored Nuclear programme in the world, claiming the Iranians are using it to secretly build Nuclear weapons. Once again, they provide ZERO verifiable evidence for their claims and again, nothing but absolutely baseless accusations (which even most members of the international atomic energy agency 'IAEA' have discredited). The key evidence they keep on refering to (which is not even new) is on a laptop handed in by some dissident group which none other than US intelligence have seen - very similar to the claims about Saddams weapons and intelligence from defectors that nobody other than intelligence services has scrutinised.

The US will not talk much about is the fact, America were the ones who started the Iranian nuclear programme back in the 1950's with the Shah. They realised that for a country of Iran's size and population, it will need nuclear power as its 'shallow' oil reserves run-out and only deep, difficult and expensive low-quality oil remains. What is even more of a slap in the face is the sanctions the US imposes on any company that does over $20million business with Iran, they are barred from trading in the US. Due to this, the big multinationals like Shell and Total etc, who have some the best technology to develop deep and difficult oil reserves are prevented from going into Iran and helping them with technology and know-how. You cannot even drill a deep well for $20million, recently an oil well just next door in Iraqi Kurdistan cost over $50million to drill. Can you understand how the US uses its sanctions to prevent a country from developing, can you understand why a country maybe forced to turn to nuclear energy as it does not have the know-how to tap its own resources and foreign companies are virtually prevented from coming in with trhe right technology too.

Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferations treaty 'NPT' and is firmly in the spotlight over its nuclear issues. Israel is not a signatory and is widely believed to be the only Mid-East country with a nuclear weapons arsenal - yet it gets no pressure whatsoever from US/Europe and the Arabs do little either. To their credit, some Gulf nations, Iran, Syria & Lebanon did raise the issue of a nuclear-weapons free mid-east a year or two ago. That it must include Israel, this proposal was immediately hounded-down by the US and the Gulf rulers simply shut-up and said no more. Iran's nuclear energy industry is no threat to the Gulf Arabs, this is a figment implanted by tedious outsiders to keep the region in a constant state of tension. Iran has even said it is willing to share and help regional nations develop the same technology. Do you know who it really threatens? .....Israel and the US. As the Arabs realise they do not need the US and its military anymore, you can only imagine how worried US and Israeli leaders would be, fearing for their position and interests in the region.

My worry is, at this time, because the Sunni Gulf rulers are not independent of the US/Israel in their policy and decision making, it will lead to further conflict which will weaken Sunni's, Shia and other groups who get caught up in the strife. Conflict should always be a last resort and a very difficult decision. It seems they are willingly living by the sword. They should remember, they are ok as long as they take care of their masters interests, once the oil starts running low, they'll realise how they have been used. they will face a fate similar to the dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi.


Allahu A'lam

brother MSZN85,

I believe everyone here agrees that conflict is the last option to solve any issues. That's the fundamental in our deen also.

Prophet Muhamad already told us that after the era of biting kingdom is gone, we would have an era of oppressive rulers. Indeed that's what is happening. By definition, oppressive rulers are those who will do whatever they could to stay in power, including to stay in beds with the kufr superpowers.

But the Prophet also gave us good tidings. That this era will be the last leg before the rise up of the Ummah again, and this will happen not just in the current Muslim nations, but all over the world as people "will be flocking to join the haq in abundance" .

My take is, look at the multidimensional fundamental movements in those countries beyond just what's on the surface. The shifts are far beyond what you just mentioned (beyond the era of oppressive ruler). There are patterns in chaos where people can see the underlying fundamentals shift. These shifts will be the signs of what was foretold by the Prophet .

Allah Knows best.

[IdomeoreTew]

For all of you defending your Iranian or Shia friends, this is what they do to Sunnis. Watch this film: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B3PMZ3P9 ("The Death Squads", or just watch it on Youtube)

Everyday muslims are fighting jihad against the rawafid in Iraq and Balochistan. Countless sunnis have been killed at their hands in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. And for all you thinking they are fighting israel is pathethic. do you know WHO prevents mujahideen in lebanon from crossing into Israel?? Hezbollah, they guard the borders. Our late sheikh mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, called them the "defenders of israel".

The iranians only TALK, they never fight. and righfully so, so that fools among the sunnis can eat it all up. they are the #1 killers in iraq, they have killed more sunnis than americans. Just like during the Crusades, the fatimid shia were allies of the crusaders. even today, they are allies in Iraq. and Palestine/Israel is just a game theyre playing to distract you from the horrors being committed in Balochistan and Syria.

Furthermore, iran is nowhere islamic. Mutah is rampant there, watch the film "Prostitution behind the veil". And do you know that their solution to homosexulauity is sex-change?? they have the 2nd largest amount of transexuals and sex-change operations in the world, 2nd only to Thailand. watch the film- "Transexuals in iran".

[u8MmZFmF]

Bismillah
Iran was never a threat to Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyZr1-jNkL0

[Sx1qBli0]

http://shiningblades.blogspot.com/20...at-israel.html