[🇮🇷] Iran has a new president and new hope

[Malang]

Iran's path to a secular state will be a gradual and peaceful evolution. Iran has a very large, well, and highly educated population, unlike other Muslim countries. They know that, historically, all revolutions are doomed for failure. On the other hand, evolution is durable. Islam, as we know, exists due to the overwhelming illiterate and semi-educated population in Asia and Africa. Most Muslims can not understand "critical English" writing, as 99% of the world's knowledge is written in English. Once they do, Islam will collapse by itself.

Iran is never going to be secular unless there is a revolution bigger than the revolution of Khamenei.

 

[Old School]

Iran is never going to be secular unless there is a revolution bigger than the revolution of Khamenei.

When you study history, you will see that revolution doesn't work in religious affairs because you can not force someone to be religious, nor can you force them to be secular. The Iranian Islamic revolution didn't make people religious as 90% of Iranian consider themselves to be atheist. Europe did not need a revolution to eliminate the church authority during the Enlightenment. They slowly became secular. Pakistan and South Asians have no chance to be secular, as 99% of these people suffer from jahiliyyat. The majority of Iranians do not have this issue. Iranians were already very much secular with a strong secular base. Jahils are more prone to typical religions, while you see that secular followers come from the educated class.

 

[Lulldapull]

I know for a fact the western jihadists are very patiently waiting with their crosses in their right hand and the bibles in their left. They will swarm attack Iran at the slightest hint of a liberal environment. The first thing they do is to create home churches in secret. If you turn Christy X-Tian, the church will give you money every month if you can convert people in secret. What has happened in the KRG, is exactly what they'd like to repeat in Iran.

Man even the Zoroastrian/ Parsi priesthood very patiently waiting to get in there when its safe.

It would be a massive victory for the West, if they can turn Iran. Russia/ China would get rocked!

And seeing Iran fall to the church would rip the heart out of Islam. It would truly be the end of any resistance in the middle east.

 

[Lulldapull]

I know zartoshti parsi priests and so many one world Christy X-Tian evangelists salivating at the thought of conquering Iran like they have done to all the other ghareeb Muslim countries. It would just suck da wind out of the Muslim lungs and suffocate them. All this war in the ME would end overnight. Sunni muzlim already toady……the takeover of Iran would be a massive victory for the west. And if it’s done right then all the resistance to convert India and China would collapse too, when the west can use all these new converts as cannon fodder against Russia and China in battling them.

It would truly be an epic victory.

Irani establishment key phatt gaee hae. They know their population is totally secular. And they have a huge country which they can’t defend with the little population they got….

 

[Malang]

The Iranian Islamic revolution didn't make people religious as 90% of Iranian consider themselves to be atheist.

Pakistan and South Asians have no chance to be secular, as 99% of these people suffer from jahiliyyat. The majority of Iranians do not have this issue. Iranians were already very much secular with a strong secular base. Jahils are more prone to typical religions, while you see that secular followers come from the educated class.

No Sir I disagree

While there are secular in every society including Pakistan and Iran, the majority of Iranians are religious and very emotional people. You cannot debate with Iranian people as you will always fear of personal attacks if you disagree with their views.

This is going to be a very long discussion if we discuss in detail by comparing various aspects of secularism with Iran so I would respectfully disagree and move on.

Iran would need a revolution to soften its policies first then a gradual process of reform will begin and requires decades if not centuries to change the public opinion from Islamist to liberal or secular.

 

[Lulldapull]

No Sir I disagree

While there are secular in every society including Pakistan and Iran, the majority of Iranians are religious and very emotional people. You cannot debate with Iranian people as you will always fear of personal attacks if you disagree with their views.

This is going to be a very long discussion if we discuss in detail by comparing various aspects of secularism with Iran so I would respectfully disagree and move on.

Iran would need a revolution to soften its policies first then a gradual process of reform will begin and requires decades if not centuries to change the public opinion from Islamist to liberal or secular.

Oh paa G dunya di secular tareen qaum hae gee Irani turani!

I have never in my life met a muzlim Irani overseas…

 

[Old School]

No Sir I disagree

While there are secular in every society including Pakistan and Iran, the majority of Iranians are religious and very emotional people. You cannot debate with Iranian people as you will always fear of personal attacks if you disagree with their views.

This is going to be a very long discussion if we discuss in detail by comparing various aspects of secularism with Iran so I would respectfully disagree and move on.

Iran would need a revolution to soften its policies first then a gradual process of reform will begin and requires decades if not centuries to change the public opinion from Islamist to liberal or secular.

At the Pakistani military intelligence school, all officers must learn the difference between a coup and a revolution and history in depth in their curriculum. They are not the same regular forum people (whose guns are bigger !) or journalists you have seen in the last 15-20 years.
I have never seen any religious Iranian outside Iran in the last 40 years in Europe, America, and elsewhere. There are fake Iranian asylum seekers ( Afghani), of course.
I also have to correct you because Iran never had an Islamic revolution in 1979 in the real sense. Technically, it was a coup in which communists were also involved. Later, Khomenei killed his communist partners and hijacked the power on behalf of the mollahs. A coup never becomes a revolution by just claiming it. Real revolutions have some different characteristics. @Aryobarzan can confirm it.

 

[Malang]

Oh paa G dunya di secular tareen qaum hae gee Irani turani!

I have never in my life met a muzlim Irani overseas…

That is because when the revolution tookover, the secular Iranians or say the sympathisers of the Shah fled abroad. They have been living abroad since then and have 3 generations.

They have little to do with Islamic Iran as they have a stance similar to the USA and they consume alcohol like mineral water.

At the Pakistani military intelligence school, all officers must learn the difference between a coup and a revolution and history in depth in their curriculum. They are not the same regular forum people (whose guns are bigger !) or journalists you have seen in the last 15-20 years.
I have never seen any religious Iranian outside Iran in the last 40 years in Europe, America, and elsewhere. There are fake Iranian asylum seekers ( Afghani), of course.
I also have to correct you because Iran never had an Islamic revolution in 1979 in the real sense. Technically, it was a coup in which communists were also involved. Later, Khomenei killed his communist partners and hijacked the power on behalf of the mollahs. A coup never becomes a revolution by just claiming it. Real revolutions have some different characteristics. @Aryobarzan can confirm it.

Dear Sir or Madam

Whether the kharbooza falls on the knife or the knife falls on the kharbooza, it is the melon that gets sliced. The 1979 revolution is recognised simply as the revolution, and whether it meets the technical definition of a revolution is irrelevant. When Pervez Musharraf seized power, he claimed it was not martial law but a temporary takeover. Historians have consistently referred to it as a coup.

Why do we have to compare each revolution to the French Revolution when the monarch and their descendants were slaughtered on the streets.

I have responded to Sir LulladaPull regarding overseas Iranians in the quoted section.

Yours Sincerely







Signature