US Sponsored Islamic Fundamentalism: The Roots of the US-Saudi Alliance

atensari

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
Re: US Sponsored Islamic Fundamentalism: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance

U are also agreed with this article thats why u r saying....عودی-امریکہ اتحاد خلافت کی قبر پر قائم ہے......

But I agree with your statement.....ویسے بڑی عقل کی بات کی ہے ....کیسے ؟؟؟؟

چاک کر دي ترک ناداں نے خلافت کي قبا
سادگي مسلم کي ديکھ ، اوروں کي عياري بھي ديکھ
 

muslim01

Siasat.pk - Blogger
I know exactly who you are and I also know exactly where you live.

The enemy who attacked Afgahnistan and Iraq is also from Zion! Shias of Iran+Iraq+Lebanon+Syria were supporting NATO and fought with NATO against Muslims!

Israel tried entering Lebanon and stopped on the border! What a joke! Isreal did not even let its air jets enter Lebanon besides having the one of the best aircrafts. It was a political gimmick just to fool Muslims that Hizbullah is the true enemy of Isreal but in reality Shias and Yahoods are secret allies.



I am not Shia .. but tell me who fought against State of Zion?

and who kicked Zion in the Butt? One Sect who have technically defeated Zion at there own game.
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
Re: US Sponsored Islamic Fundamentalism: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance

Admin, is this not sectarian you dont let us sunnis speak the truth about shias but when they start barking you dont stop them why?

FYI, I am not Shia and belong to Sunni Hanafi background.Plus, from the article itself

"Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism[1]) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of Shiʿite Islamic faith.This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate Americas responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere.

The Origins of Wahhabism: Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to Americas geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shite Islam.After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which brought down the secular-nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni), the influence of Shiite-dominated Iran increased and caused a certain power shift in favor of Shiʿite Islam in the region. Due to this strengthened Shiʿite representation, American activities in the Middle East in recent years have been almost exclusively directed against Shiʿite interests."

Moreover,I myself am against sectrianism and prefer to call myself just a Muslim rather than Deobandi,Salafi,Ahl-e-this,Ahl-e-that blah blah blah

And when it comes to barking,I remember how you and your friends were clicking likes and showing appreciation when 20 innocent Shia Muslims got butchered in Chilas in the last Ashra of Ramzan.You openly show love and support for animals of SSP,LeJ etc...and then talk about freedom and equality when in reality you consider eveyone that differs with your views Wajib-ul-Qatal.


 

seekers

Minister (2k+ posts)
[h=1]Egypt Appoints New Ambassador to Israel[/h]
byline_ap.gif
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-appoints-ambassador-israel-17138615#


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-appoints-ambassador-israel-17138615#




http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-appoints-ambassador-israel-17138615#


More Sharing ServicesShare


Share on facebook_likeEmail
Comment
Print
Text Size
-/+








By TIA GOLDENBERG Associated Press
JERUSALEM September 2, 2012 (AP)


Egypt has appointed a new ambassador to Israel, choosing an experienced career diplomat, officials from both countries said, in what some took as sign of positive relations between Israel and Egypt under an Islamist president in Cairo.
Atef Salem el-Ahl has been serving as Egypt's consul in the Israeli resort town of Eilat. He will replace Yasser Reda, whose four-year term ends this summer. Israel's Foreign Ministry and Egypt's state media confirmed the appointment Sunday.
The choice of an envoy familiar with Israel counters concerns in Jerusalem that relations with Cairo could be downgraded with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
"There is no downgrade," said Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt. "It shows the new Egypt lends importance to the Israeli relationship ... This is very encouraging."
Israel's relations with Egypt have been tense and uncertain since the ouster last year of longtime President Hosni Mubarak, who maintained the 1979 peace accord between the two nations and cooperated with Israel in a number of spheres.
Israeli concerns deepened with Muslim Brotherhood victories in elections for Egypt's parliament and president. The Islamist group's Mohammed Morsi took office as president on June 30.
Morsi has been cooler toward Israel than his predecessor. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it will abide by the peace accord, a cornerstone of stability for both nations, but has repeatedly called for changes in the limits on troops in the Sinai Peninsula, calling them unacceptable limits on Egyptian sovereignty.
The ties have been further strained by the deteriorating situation in Sinai, where militants have staged multiple attacks on the pipeline delivering gas from Egypt to Israel, lobbed rockets into Israel more frequently and have snuck across the border, killing Israelis.
On Aug. 5, Islamist gunmen brazenly killed 16 Egyptian soldiers before smashing through a fence into Israel. Egypt responded by launching a sweeping operation, using tanks and troops against the militants.
Israel allowed Egypt to increase its military presence in Sinai to carry out the operation and praised the crackdown, but balked once tanks were sent to the area. Some were removed, ostensibly in response to Israel's complaints, and Israel urged greater coordination.
Egypt's Foreign Ministry said el-Ahl's appointment was part of a reshuffle that included 34 other ambassadors. Officially, Israel played down its significance.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor noted the standard nature of the appointment, calling it "totally natural and normal."
El-Ahl is scheduled to submit his credentials to Israel's president in October.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-appoints-ambassador-israel-17138615#.UFXsio0gduk
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
I know exactly who you are and I also know exactly where you live.

The enemy who attacked Afgahnistan and Iraq is also from Zion! Shias of Iran+Iraq+Lebanon+Syria were supporting NATO and fought with NATO against Muslims!

Israel tried entering Lebanon and stopped on the border! What a joke! Isreal did not even let its air jets enter Lebanon besides having the one of the best aircrafts. It was a political gimmick just to fool Muslims that Hizbullah is the true enemy of Isreal but in reality Shias and Yahoods are secret allies.

And you talk about sectarian hatred when you openly display the same against our Shia brothers.And who's your source for all that great info?Haq Char Website which is composed by Sipah-e-Sahaba?Or some book compiled by yet another hatemongering Mullah who spreads hatred after getting money from KSA?
Plus,Afghans and later on Pakistanis too as a whole suffered due to US backed "Jihad". Do you have any knowledge that USSR was actually invited by Socialist/Marxist Afghans to curb terror and harrassment of zaleel Mullahs?Plus USSR always supported PLO against Israeli aggression and imperialism.

It was all a great game and Saudi Kings and their brokers sitting in Pakistan helped Washington.Mullah ko murgha khiladu bus.Baqi humari youth Pakistan Studies aur TV per bethe Maulvi hazarat ke ilawa koi source use karna shayad gunaah samajhti hai.Afsoos!!
 

gazoomartian

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
I am looking for an honest reply please. How many people have read this article thru, start to end? Which category listed below do you fall in?


1..... I read the whole thread

2..... I read first few lines

3..... I read only the bottom legend, definition of the terms.

4..... I did not read at all (just like Gazoo, lol)
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
[MENTION=31814]In flames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11239]muslim01[/MENTION]

Plus, if Shias were a fitna and anti-Islamic cult then how come Imam Bukhari,Imam Malik,Imam Abu Hanifa or any other prominent figure never said a word against their Fiqh?

And have you guys ever heard about Amman Message?


Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world's leading Islamic scholars 'Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the 'Three Points of the Amman Message'):

  1. They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash'arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
  2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
  3. Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.
These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World's political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide€”as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]€”unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.

http://www.ammanmessage.com/

But it's a matter of great shame that criminals like Malik Ishaq,Maulana Ludhianvi,Jhangvi and others have got no information and neither do they want their naive listeners to consult such websites. King Abdullah is a Sunni if I am not wrong. As Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz who strictly denied belonging to any particular sect or school said, that Islam has become a religion from a Deen or Movement all thanks to emperors and their clerics and Mullahs for all these centuries.

 

Raaz

(50k+ posts) بابائے فورم
کیا پاکستان اس کے احتجاج میں نیٹو سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتا ؟؟

کیا سعودیہ اس کے احتجاج میں ایک ہفتے کے لے تیل کی سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتے ؟

بلکہ صرف ایک دھمکی ہی کافی ہے

کیا مسلمان ملک اقتصادی پابندی نہی لگا سکتے ہیں

لگا سکتے ہیں اگر متحد ہوں
 
Last edited:

seekers

Minister (2k+ posts)
کیا پاکستان اس کے احتجاج میں نیٹو سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتا ؟؟

کیا سعودیہ اس کے احتجاج میں ایک ہفتے کے لے تیل کی سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتے ؟

بلکہ صرف ایک دھمکی ہی کافی ہے

کیا مسلمان ملک اقتصادی پابندی نہی لگا سکتے ہیں

لگا سکتے ہیں اگر متحد ہوں


پاکستان کی اپنی پاور سپلائی بند رہتی ہے ، نیٹو سپلائی کیا بند کرے گا

سعودیہ والوں کو شاہ فیصل کا انجام یاد ہے ، ویسے بھی ١٠٠ ڈالر/ بیرل تیل بند کر کے اپنی کمائی کیوں کھوٹی کریں

ویسے یہ اقتصادیت کیا ہوتی ہے ؟
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
Al-Qaeda now a US ally in Syria

September 11, 2012
Category:Opinion
[h=3]Joseph WakimWhile we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.
The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.
The president's ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.
Advertisement <iframe id="dcAd-1-4" src="http://ad-apac.doubleclick.net/adi/onl.ct.news/opinion;cat=opinion;ctype=article;pos=3;sz=300x250;tile=4;ord=9.3197821E7?" width='300' height='250' scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?
This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ''deadly attacks'' against Syria as ''our fighters are coming to get you'' because ''crimes'' by the regime ''prompts us to jihad''.
Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ''the terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews''. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ''your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty … Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians''. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?
By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ''linked to many other organisations in different countries … They are recruited from their own nations … where they are trained in the tactics of terror … They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction''.
Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.
Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ''sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder''. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.
If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi'te Iran's main partner in the region.
Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ''want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan'' - who were all US-Israel allies at that time.
But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?
Bush continues: ''We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.''
This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush's prophecy.
The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ''the end justifies the means'' as there are too many innocent lives at stake.
Bush rode off on his high horse: ''We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom''.
If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.
The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.
It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.
The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.
Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Joseph Wakim is the founder of Australian Arabic Council.


Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opi...ly-in-syria-20120910-25oby.html#ixzz26ehV5ySS[/h]





 

gazoomartian

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
کیا پاکستان اس کے احتجاج میں نیٹو سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتا ؟؟

کیا سعودیہ اس کے احتجاج میں ایک ہفتے کے لے تیل کی سپلائی بند نہی کر سکتے ؟

بلکہ صرف ایک دھمکی ہی کافی ہے

کیا مسلمان ملک اقتصادی پابندی نہی لگا سکتے ہیں

لگا سکتے ہیں اگر متحد ہوں

aur agar himmat ho and not corrupt. Right now US threatens to tighten screws around PPP officials (Zaradri, Gillani, Raja, Rahman Malik and all other who live in UK) for money laundering. So these corrupts, chor, and ghundas can not do anything against the US.

Americans are not stupid. They plan, edit, rehearse, test, and execute their plans. Look how intelligently they have executed their plan and installed PPP here.

To protect Zardari against any legal problems, US created a fake 'Restore the CJ movement'. Now CJ owes them for his reinstatement. Have you seen CJ do anything substantial against PPP while PPP is bleeding the country to death???
 

In flames

MPA (400+ posts)
@In flames and @muslim01

Plus, if Shias were a fitna and anti-Islamic cult then how come Imam Bukhari,Imam Malik,Imam Abu Hanifa or any other prominent figure never said a word against their Fiqh?

And have you guys ever heard about Amman Message?


Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world's leading Islamic scholars 'Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the 'Three Points of the Amman Message'):

  1. They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash'arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
  2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
  3. Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.
These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World's political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide€”as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]€”unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.

http://www.ammanmessage.com/

But it's a matter of great shame that criminals like Malik Ishaq,Maulana Ludhianvi,Jhangvi and others have got no information and neither do they want their naive listeners to consult such websites. King Abdullah is a Sunni if I am not wrong. As Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz who strictly denied belonging to any particular sect or school said, that Islam has become a religion from a Deen or Movement all thanks to emperors and their clerics and Mullahs for all these centuries.


LOL your lies are totally exposed now,shias were declared heretics by many great scholars including great Imam Bukhari, this is the fatwa of Imam Bukhari against heresy of shia,i hope you will like it :)
 

muslim01

Siasat.pk - Blogger
USSR were not invited by the Afghans. Go and read history. They attacked Afghanistan because they ultimately wanted to capture the port of Karachi as Russian ports can only export goods for 6 months because half of the year their ocean is frozen and they cannot export goods which ultimately affects their economy.

Pakistan did the right job by supporting Afghan Jihad as first of all we are muslims and secondly if we would have let Russian forces reach the border of Pakistan and then fought with them, then there would be a lot of collateral damage and we would have witnessed Russian bombs landing in KPK and ajdacent areas even in Islalmabad.

Mullah are the ones who got you Azad Kashmir and they are the ones who are giving resistance to US in Afghanistan. If you remove them from equation who will teach you how to read Quran and who will lead prayers in Masajids and who will make namaz janaza of the dead ones and who will be the one teaching Islam?

Even when USSR attached Afghanistan and was about to attack Pakistan, Iran was on the side of USSR and Iranian secret agencies were fighting a cold war with ISI. Afghan Jihad started after the yahoodi revolution in Iran.

I never want to say stuff against Shias but they are the one starting all these sectarian stuff by maligning Sahabas, Umahat ul momineen and our Ulema's!

P.S. I know that you are a Shia. Please pass this forward within your community that if you want peace with Sunnis then stop abusing our loved ones!

And you talk about sectarian hatred when you openly display the same against our Shia brothers.And who's your source for all that great info?Haq Char Website which is composed by Sipah-e-Sahaba?Or some book compiled by yet another hatemongering Mullah who spreads hatred after getting money from KSA?
Plus,Afghans and later on Pakistanis too as a whole suffered due to US backed "Jihad". Do you have any knowledge that USSR was actually invited by Socialist/Marxist Afghans to curb terror and harrassment of zaleel Mullahs?Plus USSR always supported PLO against Israeli aggression and imperialism.

It was all a great game and Saudi Kings and their brokers sitting in Pakistan helped Washington.Mullah ko murgha khiladu bus.Baqi humari youth Pakistan Studies aur TV per bethe Maulvi hazarat ke ilawa koi source use karna shayad gunaah samajhti hai.Afsoos!!
 

muslim01

Siasat.pk - Blogger
USSR were not invited by the Afghans. Go and read history. They attacked Afghanistan because they ultimately wanted to capture the port of Karachi as Russian ports can only export goods for 6 months because half of the year their ocean is frozen and they cannot export goods which ultimately affects their economy.

Pakistan did the right job by supporting Afghan Jihad as first of all we are muslims and secondly if we would have let Russian forces reach the border of Pakistan and then fought with them, then there would be a lot of collateral damage and we would have witnessed Russian bombs landing in KPK and ajdacent areas even in Islalmabad.

Mullah are the ones who got you Azad Kashmir and they are the ones who are giving resistance to US in Afghanistan. If you remove them from equation who will teach you how to read Quran and who will lead prayers in Masajids and who will make namaz janaza of the dead ones and who will be the one teaching Islam?

Even when USSR attached Afghanistan and was about to attack Pakistan, Iran was on the side of USSR and Iranian secret agencies were fighting a cold war with ISI. Afghan Jihad started after the yahoodi revolution in Iran.

I never want to say stuff against Shias but they are the one starting all these sectarian stuff by maligning Sahabas, Umahat ul momineen and our Ulema's!

P.S. I know that you are a Shia. Please pass this forward within your community that if you want peace with Sunnis then stop abusing our loved ones!

And you talk about sectarian hatred when you oapenly display the same against our Shia brothers.And who's your source for all that great info?Haq Char Website which is composed by Sipah-e-Sahaba?Or some book compiled by yet another hatemongering Mullah who spreads hatred after getting money from KSA?
Plus,Afghans and later on Pakistanis too as a whole suffered due to US backed "Jihad". Do you have any knowledge that USSR was actually invited by Socialist/Marxist Afghans to curb terror and harrassment of zaleel Mullahs?Plus USSR always supported PLO against Israeli aggression and imperialism.

It was all a great game and Saudi Kings and their brokers sitting in Pakistan helped Washington.Mullah ko murgha khiladu bus.Baqi humari youth Pakistan Studies aur TV per bethe Maulvi hazarat ke ilawa koi source use karna shayad gunaah samajhti hai.Afsoos!!
 

Mr Sane

Councller (250+ posts)
Please we are Muslims only, Do not try to further divide muslims,,, plz come out of Shia and Muslim concepts,,,

we all beleive in one God, final prophetic hood of Muhammad (PBUH) and devine book Holly Quraan,,,

Thats it,,, this is what a muslim is,,,

Whatever the sect is doing after sharing same basic concept is between Allah and such people ....

Do not divide otherwise ready to be destroyed.
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
USSR were not invited by the Afghans. Go and read history. They attacked Afghanistan because they ultimately wanted to capture the port of Karachi as Russian ports can only export goods for 6 months because half of the year their ocean is frozen and they cannot export goods which ultimately affects their economy.

Pakistan did the right job by supporting Afghan Jihad as first of all we are muslims and secondly if we would have let Russian forces reach the border of Pakistan and then fought with them, then there would be a lot of collateral damage and we would have witnessed Russian bombs landing in KPK and ajdacent areas even in Islalmabad.

Mullah are the ones who got you Azad Kashmir and they are the ones who are giving resistance to US in Afghanistan. If you remove them from equation who will teach you how to read Quran and who will lead prayers in Masajids and who will make namaz janaza of the dead ones and who will be the one teaching Islam?

Even when USSR attached Afghanistan and was about to attack Pakistan, Iran was on the side of USSR and Iranian secret agencies were fighting a cold war with ISI. Afghan Jihad started after the yahoodi revolution in Iran.

I never want to say stuff against Shias but they are the one starting all these sectarian stuff by maligning Sahabas, Umahat ul momineen and our Ulema's!

P.S. I know that you are a Shia. Please pass this forward within your community that if you want peace with Sunnis then stop abusing our loved ones!


Again,it's quite clear that that your sources are none other than Pakistan Studies textbooks,right wing columns,Zaid Hamid and literature published by Maulvis.Anyways,you just proved Karl Marx's theory that Religion could become opium for masses.That's exactly what happened in Pakistan where fraud Maulvis hijacked Quaid's Pakistan.Oh BTW,Jinnah was also a Shia so now do you want to bomb his tomb?

Prominent columnist Hassan Nisar openly calls Zia ul Haq a Manhoos and Lanati shakhs since his policy and alliance with Washington would turn the world unipolar from bipolar, and look what happened with USA as a sole superpower going crazy for past twenty years?

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Moreover, it deosn't matter if you call me Shia,Sunni or anything.I prefer to call myself just a Muslim. It's not a responsibility of everyone from Ahle-Sunnat to talk $h!T against Shia brothers. I respect Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq Razi Allahu Anhu,Hazrat Umar Farooq Razi Allahu Anhu and Hazrat Usman Ghani Razi Allahu Anhu and it's a duty of every Muslim to do so.Plus, you can check many of my previous posts in different threads.I have always been a great admirer of Allama Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz and Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi and they both talked against sectarian divisions in Islam.
 

A.G.Uddin

Minister (2k+ posts)
[MENTION=11239]muslim01[/MENTION] and [MENTION=31814]In flames[/MENTION] !

Plus if you go through the contents of the Amman Message then Ayatoullah Khameni and Ayatoullah Sistani were also present over there.So would you consider all the Sunni scholars present there from different countries also infidels, since they declared followers of Shia fiqh also their fellow Muslim brothers?And Khameni sahab clearly said that no Shia will or should ever use a wrong word against any Sunni figure.So, now what else needs be done in order to extinguish fire and hatred in your hearts.
 

In flames

MPA (400+ posts)
[MENTION=26624]A.G.Uddin[/MENTION], Khomeini has said many things which are considered as Kufr by many sunnis scholars there are many fatwas against khomeini by Sunni scholars, who deems him as heretic.