Sunnis and Shias

Sultan said:
The proverb enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. I condemn Husseini for his actions unlike yourself who always makes excuses for your nations evil acts.

I actually copied the Irgun link from Wiki.
Click to expand...

You condemn Husseini? How noble of you. Now that's what the Jewish people had to confront in the ME before 1948. Where atrocities carried out? you bet? Was there any alternative though, considering the stakes? I doubt it.

Since you use Wiki to get your facts try searching for Palestine and massacres to find several which predate the foundation of the Irgun. I recall you are familiar with the Hebron one, which you once justified with the argument that the Arabs had heard a horrible rumor. And before I'm blamed again for hijacking the thread let's use that example of Arabs killing their peaceful neighbours unprovoked in order to get back on topic.
 
holyland red said:
Now that's what the Jewish people had to confront in the ME before 1948. Where atrocities carried out? you bet? Was there any alternative though, considering the stakes? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Terrorist sympathiser!

It's fine justifying Irgun's terrorism when it's your guys doing the dirty work. Is this not exactly what Palestinians and their sympathisers say when justifying terrorists actions against Israel?.
 
Rubbish.

Colonialism isn't the return of a persecuted people to its historic homeland.

We'll probably disagree on whether the creation of the State of Israel was wise or justified. I am not surprised by your stance though. There's this odd bond between Western liberals and Islamic fundamentalists that is really tough to interpret. There's this one thing both seem to agree on, and it makes up for all the differences. Go figure.
 
HR is certainly coming out with pearls of wisdom this evening.
 
Sultan said:
:lol:

Terrorist sympathiser!

It's fine justifying Irgun's terrorism when it's your guys doing the dirty work. Is this not exactly what Palestinians and their sympathisers say when justifying terrorists actions against Israel?.
Click to expand...

Wiki and smilies. Fair contribution.

Israel exists because its leadership has been wise enough to play its cards properly. Massacres of Jews during the British mandate was met with a proper response. British fecked up carrying their duty so they had their military HQ blown up. Proper resistance.

The Palestinians are the eternal victims because they're still fighting their genocidal war. Black Knight syndrome at its worst.

Still, for all of Israel's evil why do Sunnis and Shias kill each other?
 
holyland red said:
Rubbish.

Colonialism isn't the return of a persecuted people to its historic homeland.

We'll probably disagree on whether the creation of the State of Israel was wise or justified. I am not surprised by your stance though. There's this odd bond between Western liberals and Islamic fundamentalists that is really tough to interpret. There's this one thing both seem to agree on, and it makes up for all the differences. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Must be right then, no ?
 
holyland red said:
Wiki and smilies. Fair contribution.

Israel exists because its leadership has been wise enough to play its cards properly. Massacres of Jews during the British mandate was met with a proper response. British fecked up carrying their duty so they had their military HQ blown up. Proper resistance.
Click to expand...
Still justifying terrorism? I wonder how many innocents got killed in that atrocity?

You're a bigot!
 
Terrorism = resistance

Holyland has spoken. Take note for the future.
 
Sultan said:
Still justifying terrorism? I wonder how many innocents got killed in that atrocity?

You're a bigot!
Click to expand...

Why wonder when there's wiki for every question. And the smilies feature could also make up for ignorance. It's the CE forum after all.
 
I bet you have nightmares Iranian Shia's helping their Sunni Hamas brothers.
 
Sultan said:
I bet you have nightmares Iranian Shia's helping their Sunni Hamas brothers.
Click to expand...

They should have updated wiki for you, Sultan. The cash flow has stopped since Hamas sided with the Syrian rebels. It followed Assad slaughtering of Sunnis, and starving Palestinians in al-Yarmouk. Which brings us back on topic.
 
We believe in the same God, same Prophets, pray in the same direction. We'll enjoy the fruits of heaven together.
 
Sultan said:
I'll make this short to avoid going off thread topic.

Israel are no angels. If you forcefully took peoples land, basically made the whole population live in ghettos/prison - even the likes of Ghandi would lose their mind. You really think USA/Allies went to Afghanistan to liberate women and give them rights?. Are women especially in rural India are any better off than those in Pakistan and Afghanistan? I'm sure India are not ruled by the Taliban.

India are also working behind the scenes in destabilising Pakistan. Lets not be naive and think our country is clean of these acts.

I will be the first the admit Muslims are their worst enemies.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous question. Is this a joke?

Are women in India stoned for adultery? Are they made to endure female genital mutilation?
Women in Afghanistan had no public role in society and rights under the Taliban. They weren't even entitled to education and any civil rights.

Women in rural India have equal rights to education and health. They are all entitled to a basic human franchise - the right to vote and take part in the democratic process. The career opportunities for women in India is quite good. Women in India, especially rural India face a lot of difficulties. But it is miles better than the lives of women in Afghanistan under the great "tolerant and secular" Taliban who used religion to treat all females in a way no human being deserves to be treated.
 
Nikhil said:
What a ridiculous question. Is this a joke?

Are women in India stoned for adultery? Are they made to endure female genital mutilation?
Women in Afghanistan had no public role in society and rights under the Taliban. They weren't even entitled to education and any civil rights.

Women in rural India have equal rights to education and health. They are all entitled to a basic human franchise - the right to vote and take part in the democratic process. The career opportunities for women in India is quite good. Women in India, especially rural India face a lot of difficulties. But it is miles better than the lives of women in Afghanistan under the great "tolerant and secular" Taliban who used religion to treat all females in a way no human being deserves to be treated.
Click to expand...
I'll repeat!

Before you insult other posters and call their posts a joke do some research.

Taliban are not in charge of decision making in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Both countries have an elected government. Show me cases where the government has subjected women to stoning for adultery? Girls have the same rights as boys in education. Universities are full of girls. They are allowed to vote. Pakistan had a woman Prime Minister, and plenty in government office at the moment. There is no issue of genital mutilation in both nations. That is mainly a cultural issue in Africa.
 
Last edited:
Sultan said:
We believe in the same God, same Prophets, pray in the same direction. We'll enjoy the fruits of heaven together.
Click to expand...

Quite sure aren't you. Too bad this brotherhood you describe doesn't have any clout in the current conflict zones. Islamic fundamentalism is a real global problem. So is american foreign policy. So is Israeli policy. One can hold all these positions simultaneously. Islam like most religions is inherently divisive and has an us against them mentality. Just look at all the times kafir is used in the quran.
 
Sultan said:
I'll repeat!

Before you insult other posters and call their posts a joke do some research.

Taliban are not in charge of decision making in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Both countries have an elected government. Show me cases where the government has subjected women to stoning for adultery? Girls have the same rights as boys in education. Universities are full of girls. They are allowed to vote. Pakistan had a woman Prime Minister, and plenty in government office at the moment. There is no issue of genital mutilation in both nations. That is mainly a cultural issue in Africa.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the state of women in Afghanistan before 2001, when the Taliban was in power and hence in charge of decision making. What rights did women have during all the years under Taliban rule? Ironically their condition improved after the US came and removed the Taliban from power, installing a democratic government in place.

I must be mistaken about genital mutilation in Afghanistan. It's being done in Iraq by the IS. By the way, I was not criticising you, I was criticising your post.
 
Silva said:
This line of thinking is absurd. Just because someones very distant relatives were somewhere at one point in the distant past doesn't mean that place belongs to them.
Click to expand...

Of course not.

Going back to discuss the Jews and their homeland, the thing is that we're not talking about "someone" but an almost largely displaced nation. Add to that a constant, albeit relatively small, presence in that land and the fact that no other group of people have had any sovereign entity here, or even ever claimed any collective rights for this territory prior to the 20th century.

It was only then, following the rise of Zionism, that scattered villager and nomad Arab tribes were taught that they were a nation. Nevermind the constant Arab imigration here which accompanied Zionist waves of immigration. That mess was every bit as tough to sort out back then as it is today. Fact is that nothing has changed really. Jews accept a solution based on two nation states, Arabs don't. While the conflict is ongoing Jews invest in progress, whereas Arabs persist in maintaining a conflict in the hope that Jews may one day disappear.
 
So does anyone here know exactly how historical the conflict is? it all started a few years after Muhammad SAWS death, and it was a very big islamic war.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
sonny-and-cher.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol: For feck's sake.
 
holyland red said:
Of course not.

Going back to discuss the Jews and their homeland, the thing is that we're not talking about "someone" but an almost largely displaced nation. Add to that a constant, albeit relatively small, presence in that land and the fact that no other group of people have had any sovereign entity here, or even ever claimed any collective rights for this territory prior to the 20th century.

It was only then, following the rise of Zionism, that scattered villager and nomad Arab tribes were taught that they were a nation. Nevermind the constant Arab imigration here which accompanied Zionist waves of immigration. That mess was every bit as tough to sort out back then as it is today. Fact is that nothing has changed really. Jews accept a solution based on two nation states, Arabs don't. While the conflict is ongoing Jews invest in progress, whereas Arabs persist in maintaining a conflict in the hope that Jews may one day disappear.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say nothing had changed, those scatted villagers and nomad Arab tribes have all the right to call that land their home and they were brutally removed.
 
syrian_scholes said:
So does anyone here know exactly how historical the conflict is? it all started a few years after Muhammad SAWS death, and it was a very big islamic war.
Click to expand...

There were rumblings of a schism just before the end of Uthman's (RA) caliphate, which came to boiling point during Ali's (RA) caliphate. Post Ali, Shia Islam really began to take form.
 
Uzz said:
There were rumblings of a schism just before the end of Uthman's (RA) caliphate, which came to boiling point during Ali's (RA) caliphate. Post Ali, Shia Islam really began to take form.
Click to expand...
During Ali's RA caliphate there was a war between his followers and Al-Omawien followers as Al-Omawien wanted Moaia Bin Abi Sophian to be the caliphate in place of Ali which eventually Al-Omawien won but that is what started it all, Ali's followers became the Shia'a while Sunni people are actually the followers of Muhammad SAWS, also there's a lot of branches of the Shia'a, some of them go as far as saying that god intended to make Ali the prophet not Muhammad SAWS.
 
Also Shia'a claims Umar Ibn Al-Khatab raided Ali's house and killed Fatima the daughter of Muhammad SAWS, while Sunni say that Ali was one of Umar's closest friend during Umar's caliphate which is the reason they hate Umar RA.
 
Nikhil said:
What a ridiculous question. Is this a joke?

Are women in India stoned for adultery? Are they made to endure female genital mutilation?
Women in Afghanistan had no public role in society and rights under the Taliban. They weren't even entitled to education and any civil rights.

Women in rural India have equal rights to education and health. They are all entitled to a basic human franchise - the right to vote and take part in the democratic process. The career opportunities for women in India is quite good. Women in India, especially rural India face a lot of difficulties. But it is miles better than the lives of women in Afghanistan under the great "tolerant and secular" Taliban who used religion to treat all females in a way no human being deserves to be treated.
Click to expand...

  • What about sati and bride burning?
  • You guys might not stone women but rape culture is very prevalent in India where the blame is normally on the female.
There is a saying about people in glass houses.


They have the same right in Islam as well, if you think Islam=Taliban then you really really need to do more research.
 
Also, on the topic of this thread, I have no idea why muslims are so keen to divide themselves into shia, sunni, wahabi, etc. We are muslims, end of.
 
MJJ said:
  • What about sati and bride burning?
  • You guys might not stone women but rape culture is very prevalent in India where the blame is normally on the female.
There is a saying about people in glass houses.


They have the same right in Islam as well, if you think Islam=Taliban then you really really need to do more research.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you're equating crime against women to actual rights of women, as the guy outlined. It is a fact that women in India have equal rights to men, unlike Taliban governed areas of the world.
 
MDFC Manager said:
I don't know why you're equating crime against women to actual rights of women, as the guy outlined. It is a fact that women in India have equal rights to men, unlike Taliban governed areas of the world.
Click to expand...

The fact that sati only occurred to widows doesnt have any impact on the rights of woman? Or the fact that most rape cases get overthrown? It is a fact that women in India are considered inferior to men in backward areas and are treated as such.
 
MJJ said:
The fact that sati only occurred to widows doesnt have any impact on the rights of woman? Or the fact that most rape cases get overthrown? It is a fact that women in India are considered inferior to men in backward areas and are treated as such.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you're confused between crimes and rights. Honduras has the highest rate of murder in the world. Murder isn't legal in Honduras though. Now, Taliban didn't give equal rights to women. There's a significant difference.
 
peterstorey said:
What! The ME isn't stable and Sykes-Picot was a disgusting piece of underhand treachery reneging on Hussain-McMahon.
Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was never implemented, this is one of the bigger myths surrounding the creation of the modern Middle East. McMahon's 'promises' to the Hashimites made it clear that any territory granted to an independent Hashimite state would be subject to the interests of France as well as the other Arab chiefs with whom the British were allied, such as Ibn Saud. Hussein and his sons were well aware of what French interests amounted to.

Furthermore, the Hashimites represented nobody but themselves. They had little support even in their homeland in the Hijaz (which in any case they lost to the Saudis in 1924-25), and the vast majority of Ottoman Arabs remained loyal to the sultan throughout the war. And at the same time the British were supposedly engaging in 'underhand treachery', the Hashimites were sending secret emissaries to Istanbul to sound out the Young Turk government about the possibility of returning to the Ottoman fold in exchange for guarantees of autonomy in the Hijaz.

In any case, the obsession with Sykes-Picot only helps obscure the fact that there was really no suitable postwar arrangement in the Middle East that would have avoided trouble. A region that had been run relatively smoothly for 300-400 years, where everyone knew and understood their defined place in society, was bound to unravel once the germ of nationalism infected it during the 19th c. Unfortunately for the Arabs of the empire, they were the last of its peoples to recognize and adapt to the changing winds, and by the time they were able to react it was too late (contrast with Ataturk who managed to save Turkey from a similar fate).

Conquest at the hands of a foreign power is generally as much the result of as the cause of a nation's fault lines and weaknesses.
 
MDFC Manager said:
Like I said, you're confused between crimes and rights. Honduras has the highest rate of murder in the world. Murder isn't legal in Honduras though. Now, Taliban didn't give equal rights to women. There's a significant difference.
Click to expand...

Adultery is punished by stoning to death for males and females unlike sati which is only for females. But yeah the first one shows a lack of rights while the second is a crime. Got it.

Just like women in backwards areas of India dont have equal rights like I posted before. So not that significant of a difference.
 
MJJ said:
Adultery is punished by stoning to death for males and females unlike sati which is only for females. But yeah the first one shows a lack of rights while the second is a crime. Got it.

Just like women in backwards areas of India dont have equal rights like I posted before. So not that significant of a difference.
Click to expand...

This is a bizarre argument. Sati has been illegal in India for more than a century now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.