"I support Muslims who love freedom" (6 Viewers)

[JBF]

Indeed. I know many Saudians who share Gamaro's thoughts even if they express them using more interesting adjectives

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ReBeL]

The only thing his location would suggest is that he wouldn't say he's against them, nothing else

 

[K.O.]

In fact,khomeini and Al Saud family in KSA are the main reasons behind the dsetroyed image of Islam,They both used the name of Islam to establish their rule but actually they are nothing but hypocrite dictators.

Al Saud follower!!!!!!!!!!!!


What made you think so?

 

[K.O.]

Indeed. I know many Saudians who share Gamaro's thoughts even if they express them using more interesting adjectives

Saudis or Sudanis?

 

[JBF]

Naturally Saudis.

 

[K.O.]

Well, you can add my view as a 100% Saudi...

I wish and hope Al-Saud family stay in power of this kingdom to the end of time. :xfinger:

 

[king Ale]

He's the one who has put the structures to the way Iran is run now but it all depends on the character of the person, some may be influenced by that as it might seem to them that the government is in fact representing the religion and since it's doing what it is doing in the name of Islam then Im no believer in such a religion that would allow such actions, orders, laws, etc..

So one way or another Khomeini might well be the one who had the most say in whatever beliefs you've now

Well, maybe he influenced your parents, and that influence got over to you? He does have an influence over all the Persians who fled and now hates Islam.. Because of him.

They don't represent Islam, it's generally accepted among people but if something is so easy and vulnerable to be manipulated by being interpreted in wrong ways, isn't it inefficient or even maybe dangerous at times?

Maybe its silly for you, but thats how it is by many of the Persians I know here in Norway. Their parents fled from Khoemini and his government and became "un-religous" and that influenced them.

Those who left Iran after 1979 Islamic revolutions were neither religious nor were they even supporting the revolution.

 

[Fake Melo]

But the religion was in a way forced upon them. A lot of people say that if you try to force a religion or anything at anyone. It won't work. After what I recall, after the revolution Iran became very strict compared to what it used to be. Therefore there was massive fled to the west.

 

[ReBeL]

They don't represent Islam, it's generally accepted among people but if something is so easy and vulnerable to be manipulated by being interpreted in wrong ways, isn't it inefficient or even maybe dangerous at times?

This is not interpretation. It is manipulation of religion. There is nothing in Islam called religion clerks, so those in Qumm have no Islamic reference to what they are doing and saying all the time.

 

[king Ale]

But the religion was in a way forced upon them. A lot of people say that if you try to force a religion or anything at anyone. It won't work. After what I recall, after the revolution Iran became very strict compared to what it used to be. Therefore there was massive fled to the west.

Islam wasn't forced upon anyone in the first few years after the revloution. Those who left didn't want an Islamic regime ruling the country. They were not religious people who started hating on Islam because of Khomeini.

This is not interpretation. It is manipulation of religion. There is nothing in Islam called religion clerks, so those in Qumm have no Islamic reference to what they are doing and saying all the time.

And they are credible enough to have the first and last saying in a country with a large population. Without being connected to Islam, they would have never had the chance to become so powerful like that.

How do you draw a line between interpretation and manipulation? How could it be possible for every Muslim in the world to recognize the difference?

 

[Fake Melo]

I am not saying that they were religious and hates islam because of Khoemini. They were never religious and that has passed on to many of their next generations.

But it is ironic that the same Persians who fled distances themselves from Islam on this very day.

Did you know Andrea Agnelli's cousin, Gianni Agnelli's son went to Iran? Apperantly he converted to shia-Islam

 

[king Ale]

I am not saying that they were religious and hates islam because of Khoemini. They were never religious and that has passed on to many of their next generations.

But it is ironic that the same Persians who fled distances themselves from Islam on this very day.

Did you know Andrea Agnelli's cousin, Gianni Agnelli's son went to Iran? Apperantly he converted to shia-Islam

How is it ironic? They aren't even affected by the rules of Islamic regime in Iran anymore. There must be other reasons.

Yea, and he changed his name to "Mehdi". Iran government believes that Mehdi was killed by the Jews in Agnelli's family

 

[Fake Melo]

I forgot the isn't. It isn't ironic

I watched the documenty on Irani television, was it a big case over there? Anyways, the death seemed very mystical. My last name is Mehdi

 

[ReBeL]

And they are credible enough to have the first and last saying in a country with a large population. Without being connected to Islam, they would have never had the chance to become so powerful like that.

How do you draw a line between interpretation and manipulation? How could it be possible for every Muslim in the world?

Manipulation is when there is something that is applied in the country in the name of Islam while it is not originally from any source of Islam.

 

[Fred]

Well, you can add my view as a 100% Saudi...

I wish and hope Al-Saud family stay in power of this kingdom to the end of time. :xfinger:

How ironic would it be if the family that the country's name is derived from isn't ruling anymore

do you think they'd change the name then?

Islam wasn't forced upon anyone in the first few years after the revloution. Those who left didn't want an Islamic regime ruling the country. They were not religious people who started hating on Islam because of Khomeini.



And they are credible enough to have the first and last saying in a country with a large population. Without being connected to Islam, they would have never had the chance to become so powerful like that.

How do you draw a line between interpretation and manipulation? How could it be possible for every Muslim in the world to recognize the difference?

Don't you think that if they didnt have religion to use as a means for attaining power, they would have just used something else?

 

[Martin]

Don't you think that if they didnt have religion to use as a means for attaining power, they would have just used something else?

Wrong. If they couldn't use religion to gain power they would have tried some other way to gain power, but nowhere is it said that they would succeed to the same extent. This is precisely the point: religion supplies a wide range of superstition that unprincipled people can abuse. If the superstition wasn't there, it couldn't be abused. Agree?

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose Fred is an unscrupulous tyrant wannabe and wants to take power. His specialty is abusing superstition in the population. Unfortunately, in his country religious belief has been [noone knows how] removed entirely. So now he has to base his propaganda on other types of superstition. People who believe in ghosts, UFOs, psychics etc etc. Unfortunately for Fred, the percentage of such believe is far, far lesser than the number of people who once believed in god. So the number of people who are likely to be fooled this way is not 50% but maybe 10%. Ergo, the threshold to a power grab is higher (which is good thing?)

When you say "they would have used some other means" you are presenting the motive as the conclusion. You are saying that no matter what anyone might have done, they would succeed one way or another. This is not only cynical and fatalistic, it's also not particularly reasonable. It should be logical that the struggle for power is a competition between various parties and the party with the best advantage is most likely to win. Thus it matters a great deal what that advantage may be.

 

[Fred]

Wrong. If they couldn't use religion to gain power they would have tried some other way to gain power, but nowhere is it said that they would succeed to the same extent. This is precisely the point: religion supplies a wide range of superstition that unprincipled people can abuse. If the superstition wasn't there, it couldn't be abused. Agree?

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose Fred is an unscrupulous tyrant wannabe and wants to take power. His specialty is abusing superstition in the population. Unfortunately, in his country religious belief has been [noone knows how] removed entirely. So now he has to base his propaganda on other types of superstition. People who believe in ghosts, UFOs, psychics etc etc. Unfortunately for Fred, the percentage of such believe is far, far lesser than the number of people who once believed in god. So the number of people who are likely to be fooled this way is not 50% but maybe 10%. Ergo, the threshold to a power grab is higher (which is good thing?)

.

True, nowhere is it said that they won't succeed using other methods either though.

Communist propaganda and Nazi propaganda in the Soviet Union and Germany respectively were just as effective a tool as religion i would argue. Ideological propaganda has proven very effective too.

When you say "they would have used some other means" you are presenting the motive as the conclusion. You are saying that no matter what anyone might have done, they would succeed one way or another. This is not only cynical and fatalistic, it's also not particularly reasonable. It should be logical that the struggle for power is a competition between various parties and the party with the best advantage is most likely to win. Thus it matters a great deal what that advantage may be.

You're taking my words too literally, if Iran wasn't a muslim country, it would be reasonable to speculate that if religion was non existent, tyrants could just use other means, and there are other means that are just as effective as religion as a tool to gain power and control over people. I'm not saying "they would succeed no matter what", i'm just saying its not completely unreasonable to suggest that a want to be tyrant would not just use tools other than religion. You're making it sound like if Iran wasn't a religious country, there would be no chance of a tyranny gaining control over the country.

 

[ReBeL]

Wrong. If they couldn't use religion to gain power they would have tried some other way to gain power, but nowhere is it said that they would succeed to the same extent. This is precisely the point: religion supplies a wide range of superstition that unprincipled people can abuse. If the superstition wasn't there, it couldn't be abused. Agree?

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose Fred is an unscrupulous tyrant wannabe and wants to take power. His specialty is abusing superstition in the population. Unfortunately, in his country religious belief has been [noone knows how] removed entirely. So now he has to base his propaganda on other types of superstition. People who believe in ghosts, UFOs, psychics etc etc. Unfortunately for Fred, the percentage of such believe is far, far lesser than the number of people who once believed in god. So the number of people who are likely to be fooled this way is not 50% but maybe 10%. Ergo, the threshold to a power grab is higher (which is good thing?)

When you say "they would have used some other means" you are presenting the motive as the conclusion. You are saying that no matter what anyone might have done, they would succeed one way or another. This is not only cynical and fatalistic, it's also not particularly reasonable. It should be logical that the struggle for power is a competition between various parties and the party with the best advantage is most likely to win. Thus it matters a great deal what that advantage may be.

Before Islam, Iran was ruled by Sassanid empire for 400 years. Religion was not the main factor there.

 

[JuveJay]

Many aspects of Zoroastrianism are present in the culture and mythologies of the peoples of the Greater Iran, not least because Zoroastrianism was a dominant influence on the people of the cultural continent for a thousand years. Even after the rise of Islam and the loss of direct influence, Zoroastrianism remained part of the cultural heritage of the Iranian language-speaking world, in part as festivals and customs, but also because Ferdowsi incorporated a number of the figures and stories from the Avesta in his epic Shāhnāme, which in turn is pivotal to Iranian identity.

Is this not true then?

 

[K.O.]

How ironic would it be if the family that the country's name is derived from isn't ruling anymore

do you think they'd change the name then?

It won't be one country after Al-Saud, at least 3 different countries. Even though I'm from the eastern province (Where all the oil and industry are located) which would be crazy rich if it was a country by its own, I still want Al-Saud to stay in power forever. Without them, this country will be ruled by Islamic Radicals or "Wahabbis" as some may call them. Not mentioning the possible civil war included.