The Islamic Center

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7506561148101946170&ei=8t_iSrfIFqLa2gKFtdS0Bg&q=trita+parsi#

Jilani at 05:19PM on Oct 24, 2009

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7506561148101946170&ei=8t_iSrfIFqLa2gKFtdS0Bg&q=trita+parsi#

Dear Jilani,

When you are in a situation of dire need then you are able to even eat and drink haram to save yourself. Only to the extent of saving yourself and not beyond that. That is a Quranic and fiqhi principle.

Iran bought weapons during the Iran Contra scandal because the revolution itself was at risk. in 1979 a  Russian occupation took place in Afghanistan to protect the spread of the ideas of the revolution in Iran to its southern borders along the Caspian sea. A coup detat  took place in Turkey to prevent the westward spread of the revolution. An eight-year war was imposed by the west and fronted by Sadddam and financed by the gulf states. Under those circumstances you take the weapons from anywhere.

Unless you have a context for moral choices you may make big mistakes of assuming collusion between the USA, Israel and Iran. There are indeed some in Iran who want reapproachment with Israel. They do think that if they cosy up to Israel then Iran will be rehabilitated.

These people are deluded. The Pehlavi project was an imperial one. Mossadeq was overthrown not because he wanted Khomeini Velayat al-Faqih regime. No he was overthrown because he wanted to put the proceeeds of the oil at the disposal of the improvement of the lives of the Iranian people. All these Gulf states know what awaits them if they oppose imperial interests.

Jilani, you can indeed have problems with political choices of Iran but to accuse it of collusion with Zionism and imperialism is way off the mark.

The pressure of the zionists and imperialists indicates that they understand this matter perhaps better than you and that should suffice. They are enemies of Muslims and oppressed peoples.

Br Miqdad.

You start your reply by telling me what is acceptable in the Quran. However, I don't see that Iran was in such a situation. It was Khomeini who came in and allowed Iranians to hold innocent Americans as hostages. He accused them of being spies and majority of those hostages weren't spies. He didn't have any proof for anything. He only allowed his emotions to take control.

When he was asked by an American to explain himself, what did he say ? He said he was following the will of the people. Where was the Quran gone then ? Where were the Ahlul Bayt's (as) teachings gone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo0B8NY-cJ8

Just like Muawiyah, Iran had to purchase weapons from the kaffirs and play dirty politics. Also, exchanging hostages for weapons another  dirty game. From your shia background you have been always told stories of how Muawiyah withheld water from Imam Ali (as)  and shias, but when it Imam Ali (as) oppertunity arrived he allowed Muawiyah's shias to access water. Why did Muawiyah do all this ? He was angered and he claimed that since  Uthmaan (ra) wasn't given access to water, it was okay for him to do take revenge. Likewise Khomeini hated what the Shah did and he decided to take revenge against a bunch of Americans who were innocent from all this. As for the contra affair there is more information then Iran just wanting spare parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pInoBtXGheQ

As for American and Zionist they are pleased when Muslims like us get all emotional. When we do, they sell us both weapons so we can kill each other. Then in the next generation stories  are told on why one side should hate each other and kill each other. The best part is there is no winner in the end except for the Zionist and the Americans.

Dear Br Jilani,

I am not a Shia at all.

May I suggest that I do not beleive that Muawiyah had any claim to the leadership of the Muslims in the days of Ali or his sons. Not that I believe in leadership being inherited. Muawiyah and his father had spent the best years of Abu Sufiyan's life in opposition to the Prophet. It is like getting a Glen Beck or Hannity from Fox News taking the leadership of the Democratic Party. They would only be able to do that by wrong means.

Even if Ali was not the person to assume the leadership, Abu Sufyan and his family accepted Islam at the fall of Mecca. A lot has happened before and there was a seasoned leadership that had served their time.

I do not care for Sunni or Shia accounts of history. I look at the facts and make up my own mind. I know struggle and what it takes to succeed. A leadership emerges from the trernches of struggle. Abu Sufyan and his family were not there. They just did not qualify. They did not earn the respect of the rank and file. There were others who were more deserving.

As for the hostages I think it was wrong to take the Americans hostage. Imam Khomeini should have ordered them to be expelled. Iran lost the moral high ground (on this issue) and is still paying for it.

I still believe that you are wrong to accuse Iran of colluding with Israel and its master. The historical record shows otherwise.

Br Miqdad

If one reads history one can't even consider Muawiyah to be a Muslim. As for the Israeli and the Iranian connection I never stated that there was a direct connection. However,  what I am stating is that when the Gulf countries are in trouble, Iran has no problems making an alliance with the West. Recall what happpened after 9/11. Iran could of kept it mouth shut. On the contrary, they themselves voluteered to help American invade Afganistan. Now I am not saying the Taliban were good people. But when Muawiyah asked Imam Hassan (as) to assist him to defeat the Khawarij, Imam Hassan (as) replied by saying he is not an Imam to spill Muslim blood. You can see why Iran assisted Afganistan. They had their own agenda which was to transform Afganistan into a Shia regime. Then in the end America ends up betraying them.

Also what I find ironic is that Iran was the first shia government to call on Sunni Muslims for unity. However, they can't even unite Sunnis in their own country. Till this day there is no Sunni mosques in Tehran. One might reply by saying the Sunni population isn't large enough. Well is the Jewish population that large ? The Jews in Iran have 22 synagogues for a population of 25,000. There is even a Sikh Gurudwara in Tehran for a population of 800 Sikhs.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurdwara_Sahib_%28Tehran%29

What if in Pakistan we decided to shut down all the Shia mosques and tell the shias that they have the right to pray at Sunni mosques instead ? How would the Imami Shias feel ? In fact, since their deen is heavly based on emotions they might have a benefit in the end. Untill there are no Sunni representatives in Iran in politics, until there are no mosques in Tehran, I am not ready to take any Ayatollahs as the leaders of the Muslims. As for Palestinans they have their own reasons.

The other day a shia told me Iran allowed a sunni scholar to defend Muawiyah. I was like what a joke. They must have laughed at the ignorance too.