Is Iran an islamic power base that could unite all islamic nations

At the moment, Iran does not have the military and Islamic power to rule the Middle East. Moreover, the other Islamic states, consisting mainly of Arabs, do not like the Iran whose people are of Persian origin and do not share the same Islamic beliefs.

The Islamic religion actually consists of two groups, The Sunnis and the Shi-is. Of the 700 million Muslims in the world, 87 are Shi-is. Only in Iran is the Shi-ism the official religion. The Sunnis and the Shi-is dislike each other pretty much like the Catholics and Protestants. The fact that the Sunnis and Shi-is also belong to seperate ethic groups fuels their animosity.

For example, during the 1st Gulf War, the Sunni states- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc.. were supplying massive amounts of weapons and finance to the Iraqi invasion of Iran. Iran was bled dry by that war. The Iranians had to resort to using children in their front line attacks in the last stages of the war. After the war, it suffered a massive earthquake where millions died.

At the moment, the Iranian people, esp the young, are pretty sick and tired of the strict no-fun religious government. Their strict Shi-is Islamic way of life is not as blissful as they thought it would be.
They are moving toward a more moderate government. Hopefully, things will open up there for us to spread the word of God.

So to cut a long story short, no way are the Arab Muslims going to submit to Persian Muslims. They hate each other.

The only problem with Iran is that they probably already obtained nuclear weapons from Russia or China and are developing missiles that can launch them into Israel.

As for new crusades, current Christianity does not appear to preach death and murder to non-believers. The Crusades were quite bloody affairs and usually ended up with the European knights killing everyone, man, women and babies, that didn't look like them.... err.. White Christians.

I might be wrong but for me anyhow, I don't feel inclined to kill anyone at the moment.

Originally posted by celtic_crusader
I have watched Iran become very quiet after the iatola humani died.

Since the end of the Iran and Iraq war they have seemed to stay out of the limelight. Little like the Chinese in the past.

So, I am wondering, has Iran got the military and Islamic power to cause another era of the crusaders and holy wars????

They seem to be the only strong Moslem country with the power to unit every Moslem nation.

Are they a power house that the American govt. is wear of or am I mistaken in that????

Celtic crusader.

Click to expand...

Well all relgions have deep, sometimes irreconcilable, differences. Moreso, if they hold onto rigid interpretations on their religion.

I am not of Arab origin. Of knowledge of all things Islam, come through the reading of books and listening to good lecturers on the issue. I do not come from the Middle East either.

A lot of the quarrels between the different sects of Islam stem from ancient rivalries and blood-feuds. If you read any of the histories on Islam - I'd suggest an academic account with reputable sources - you'll learn everything you need to know.

BTW, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the founder of the Shi-is Islamic regime was popular and impressive in the 1970s. But he's dead, and his successors face an uphill battle meeting the needs of their people.

Origin
I'm not too sure about this. But I think the Palestinians' origin come from the ancient Philistines. Not too sure though.

The Iranians are Persians are a seperate race from the Arabs; the Arabs trace their roots to Ishamel or at least they claim to.
http://www.persianoutpost.com/htdocs/iranfacts.html

Could the Pope win back the Protestants into the Catholic fold??? Um, only if he renouced his title of Vicar of Christ, got rid of all those statues of Mary, explained clearly the doctrine of salvation by faith and the role of Jesus as our only intercessor to God's ear, etc... and for good measure, apologized for the sale of indlugences in the 14th century.

I'd like to say lol. But really its too serious to be funny.

I'm afraid that many of the Crusaders were misguided bigoted "christians". Many of them like the Knights Hospitalers did a good work caring for the sick but they also thought it was their Christian duty to kill the wicked heathen. (Their bigoted viewpoints are quite similar to how some "Christians" think that slavery is good and that black people are inferior.) The sad thing is that the Muslims still bring the crusade issue up whenever you try to tell them about the love of Jesus.

Bush is not leading a Crusade. In fact, he is doing his best to distance himself from those religious wars. He is simply leading a campaign to destroy those Islamic groups that harbor and support terrorist organizations.

Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by celtic_crusader
Wow, that was great yauming. Thank you.

I knew there was a brake in the Islamic sects but I didn`t no that it ran that deep. What you say makes allot of sense. Are you of Arabic origin???

You seem to know allot about it, do you come from around there???

I remember the Iraq and Iran war; I was under the impression that the Iatola had allotted of Islamic power among all Moslems but would that is like saying that the pope had all the power over Christians when he doesn’t.

But couldn’t the pope win back the Christian sects if it came to a threat from an apposing religion.

Are Persians only limited to Iran? Aren’t the Palestinians of Persian desent???? Or of the philistines???


The crusaders wasn`t exactly Christian (even though the pope and kings caused it), although they went to Jerusalem under the Christian banner and took Jerusalem back just like many other nations did over thousands of years.
That’s the thing about war yauming; people are murdered and killed, man woman and child alike.

So, isn’t America flying the Christian banner even though their armys may not be Christian? Wouldn’t what George bush has done be like what king Richard did in the third crusade.

King Richard was not a religious man as such but the Byzantine Empire was a threat to Europe and jeruselum and there way of life so king Richard went to war under the Christian banner just like America is today.

Wars seem to be started by one culture threatening another.

The thing is, which culture is threatening which????

Click to expand...

Mohamad copied a lot from the Jewish and Christian books to form the Toran. The Muslim would of course say that this one man got it all through divine revealation. (I see a bit of similarities between the Muslim and Mormons in this - each group gets all its knowledge from one man).

I think you're right about that point. (I lost my book on the Muslim religions so I can't tell you exactly).

But as far as the Muslim is concerned, Ishamel the son of Hagar was God's chosen one - the first born of Abraham's offspring.
They do not count Sarai's son into the equation. And Mohamad rewrote their Koran to favor the story for Ishamel.

The whole saga of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar and their children all reads like a Hollywood soap opera. My mum blames Abraham for causing all the trouble!

For more information on Islam goto

http://www.answering-islam.org/

Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by celtic_crusader

I have heard that the moslums believe that it was ishmeal that was offered up for sacrafice , is this true????

was it writen in the koran???

thanks

celtic.

Click to expand...

I made mention that Mohamad rewrote part of the Koran to favor Ishamel. I am probably wrong in this. I read the answering Islam site and it appears that in the Koran version of the sacrifice, the name of the child was omited. I think I was wrong to say that Mohamad added Ishamel's name into that act.

Sorry for the mistake.

Cheers,

YM


http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/disagree.html

...
The reason for the above assumption is as follows: if Abraham's "only son" (Genesis 22:2) was offered, Isaac could not have been born at that stage, for Ishmael could not have been the only son anymore. But Genesis 22:2 is quite clear on this point. It actually states the name Isaac. In Sura 37:100-111 the story of the sacrifice of Abraham's son is recorded without naming the son: "We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear". Although this Sura deviates somewhat from the Biblical narrative, the event of the sacrifice is reported. As a parallel passage we should mention Sura 11:71, where, however, the chronology of the event has been somewhat mixed up.

The reference in Sura 37 culminates in the words:

"We ransomed him (the son) with (another) momentous (or noble) sacrifice." (My emphasis).
The Islamic concept that Ishmael was on the altar can be supported only by the Traditions (Yusuf Ali Commentary, note 4096, 4101) ("Dictionary of Islam", page 219). Bearing everything in mind we are tempted to conclude that the Islamic view is motivated by expediency.

Yes, Isaac was not the only biological son. But as far as God was concerned the covenant promise was made to cover only Sarah's child by Abraham.

But Ishamel's line, of course, dispute this. Don't think you are going to convince them otherwise though.

I don't know whether the other offspring by Abraham's wives whom he took after Sarah died share the same feeling as Ishamel's side though.

Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by celtic_crusader

These posts are interesting, hear is why I recon Isaac was the only son that Abraham had when he took Isaac up to be sacrificed

Another thing to be awear off, is that Sarah and Hagar wern`t Abraham’s only wives, he also had many concubines which also had his children and they are allot of the ancient tribes.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Yauming

The whole saga of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar and their children all reads like a Hollywood soap opera. My mum blames Abraham for causing all the trouble!

[/B]

Click to expand...

Hello Yauming,
That's funny, your mum blaming Abraham, maybe they can argue that point in heaven. LOL. Just kiddin'
Most people try to nail all the blame on Eve.
But I think it was that serpents fault. He better hope I never get my hands around his neck. Of course, Jesus will beat me to the punch.

Hello celtic crusader,
This is a very good question that you bring up here. If you would allow me to take one crack at it, I'll drop my two cents in the bucket. LOL

I can almost invision this happening. With this war on terrorism, we see all the terrorists are muslim or Arabs. Sooner or later they will reconize that if they don't do something, they will all be wiped out. Then they will all unite, and maybe even cut off the oil supply to the U.S.... In Ezekiel 38:4 - I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army........... this is only half of the verse, but what if : this could fit into the scheme.

Iran is in the process of receiving nuclear assistance from Russia, and Russia received money, but there is more to this agreement. Russia has agreed with Iran, that if Iran gets involved in a war, then Russia would fight on their behalf. This sure looks like it could turn into the hook in Gogs jaw. Hmmmmmmmmm, very interesting indeed! ! !

Heehee, nah she just blames the whole Middle Eastern problem on Abraham inability to keep his pants up.

I wonder what he said when Sarai told him to sleep with her Eqyptian servant girl?

(God is good ???)
("woohoo???")

Can you imagine your wife telling you that?

Just kidding again.

YM

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


Hello Yauming,
That's funny, your mum blaming Abraham, maybe they can argue that point in heaven. LOL. Just kiddin'

Click to expand...

Hi,

Where is the news that Russia is forming a military treaty with Iran???

You have to remember that Russia is a big oil seller and competitor to the Arabs. The Russians really hopes that Opec will cut their supply so that Russia can step in and take their place.

As for helping the Iranians out. You also have to remember that Iran hates Russia for its oppression of Muslim minorities in the old Soviet republics.... not to mention the Russia war against the Muslims in Chechnea. People also seem to forget that Russia killed millions of Afganistans in its war there 20 years ago.

Moreover, the Iranians and the other Arab states are supporting Muslim rebels in the old Soviet Republics. Hardly, the sort of situation that makes great allies.

As things stand now. The Russians are more likely to side with the US and undercut the Arabs.

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
Hello celtic crusader,
Iran is in the process of receiving nuclear assistance from Russia, and Russia received money, but there is more to this agreement. Russia has agreed with Iran, that if Iran gets involved in a war, then Russia would fight on their behalf. This sure looks like it could turn into the hook in Gogs jaw. Hmmmmmmmmm, very interesting indeed! ! !

Click to expand...

Yes, Russia has been supplying arms to the Muslim countries since the start of the Cold War. But that was to counter the US support for Israel. This still does not detract from the truth that the Russians are the traditional hostile to the Muslims and that the Russians are hard fighting with the Muslim minorities in the old Soviet Republics whom the Middle East Muslims support.

Yes, Iranians are Persian, Saudi Arabia, etc are Arabs.

When they are faced with a common enemy, Israel or European Crusaders for example, they will unite.

But afterwards, they bitterly fight amongst themselves over ancient tribal and national blood feuds.

Note that one reason why Israel has been successful in its wars against the Muslim nations is that their unity is very fragile.

When the Israelis attack one Arab unit, say the Syrians, the other units say the Iranians, will often not help *their fellow muslim brothers*. They wait hoping that the Israelis will weaken.

And of course during the Iranian and Iraq war, the Saudis and Kuwaits heavily supported Sadam's invading forces against the Iranians. It was really a classic Arab Sunni vs a Persian Shi-es war.

During the Gulf War2 when Sadam invaded his former backer and ally Kuwait (with friends like these...... )

Frankly Saudi Arabia couldn't give a d@mn about Iran. The Iranians are not from the SA "tribe" or group. They are Shi-es and Persian. However, to appease their public, the Saudi leaders have to make some noise about America's judgement on Iraq and Iran. The Saudi leaders do know that if America smashes both of them, they stand to benefit.

As for Abraham's wives.... I dunno. I read Genesis 25 but Sarah dies in Genesis 23. Maybe....

Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by celtic_crusader
Russia has been supporting Iran for a long time and as you said yauming, Iran is Persian, so what would Iran care if the other Moslem nations were attacked.

They would, wouldn’t they and they would be even more bothered by America bombing the hell out of Afghanistan if they didn`t like the Russians for doing it.

See, you said that the Moslems wouldn’t unit because of the Iranians being Persians but hear your saying that the Iranians will support other Moslem nations against Russia so why wouldn’t they feel the same way about America’s threats against them and other Moslem nation???



Maybe I misunderstood hear but are you saying that Abraham took more wives after Sarah died because that’s not right yauming. Abraham was already to old for children when Sarah died and the scripture says he sent his "SONS" (not son plural) away with gifts and kept issac as the inheritor.

So Abraham was already having a great time with many wives before Sarah gave him permission to be with her slave.

Celtic.

Click to expand...

The Russians fed arms to both sides, Iraq and Iran, during that war. Why? To make a profit. Russia needs all the cash it can get to fund its own arms race against America.

However, Russia's policy is NOT to sell its best weapons to the Iranians. Of course, some weapons may slip thru thanks to corrupt or penniless Russian officers.

But seriously, it is against Russia's interest to support the growth of a strong military Iran. Iran, as I have said before, supports the Muslim rebels in the Russian provinces. Any weapon that the Russians sell to Iran has a good chance of ending up killing Russians.

China is only speaking up for Iran because it has dreams of becoming the next super power. Thus, it has to resort to rhectoric and anti-US alliances. It hopes that the US will give it more concessions or "gifts". Moreover supporting Iran, not only makes trouble for America but it also wins China "brownie points" in Iran.

Problem is that China, like Russia, is oppressing its Muslim minorities. Iran probably is supporting some of the Muslim rebels etc...

Its complicated. Whether or not Iran or Saudi concern for non-Persian or non-Arab Muslims in China or Russia - outweights their own geo-strategic objectives - is up for debate.

Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by celtic_crusader


Hi Yauming,
I also noticed that the Russians fed iran arms in the araq and iran war. persians or not , they are an allie of russias arn`t they???

if russia played the middle man in the gulf war on sadam`s behalf , how much more will Russia back Iran???

another questian??? does china have any links to Iran??? they seem to be speaking up latley, why????

Click to expand...

>>I might be wrong but for me anyhow, I don't feel inclined to kill anyone at the moment.

Don't be so sure that it is not christians or men of God that are fighting the war in Afganstan. Most of the fighting is done by 3% of the troops who are highly trained. In their off duty time, they are just as likely to be reading a Bible as they would be to study a training manual. What they are NOT doing is chasing women or getting drunk. The grunts do that, but not the special forces.

The weapons are so advanced that 8 men took out over 1500 of the enemy. But then a 14 year old boy got through and caught one of them off guard and killed him.