Bahrain is perfecting the art of repression, and Britain is happy to help

[Arabian Stallion]

Why would it turn Islamic anyway, Shia's are not even religious. Shia's identify as Shia in regards to their supposed 'Persian' background. It has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, religion of Islam is used to advance/use better effective means for that agenda. That's it. In the ME, some of you make it appear as a religious struggle, in front of Western audience it's a humanitarian struggle against Muslim terrorists and evil Islam and what not. Which is more than enough validation for the theory that is an ethnic crusade.

Brother, you seem to have been fooled by what you see on PDF. There are more Shia Arabs in the world than Shia Farsis. 99,9% of all Shia Arabs have absolutely no ancestral ties to Iran or any such ties whatsoever. The largest community of Shia Arabs in the world can be found in Southern Iraq and the people there are identical to Saudi Arabian Arabs (they belong to the exact same tribes) and most of them even migrated from KSA (mainly Najd) not that long ago. Only a few centuries ago. Some migrated into Iraq when Iraq was still a Kingdom (1958). Vice versa too. When many of those tribes settled in Southern Iraq (the most recent migration wave, I am not talking about the hundreds that occurred during the Islamic Age or in pre-Islamic times (Lakhmids) or prior to us even being known as Arabs but solely our Semitic ancestors (Babylonians, Akkadians) etc. All of them migrated from Arabia into Mesopotamia and Levant. Even the Sumerians are thought by many professors and studies to be originally from nearby Eastern Arabia (Arabian bifacial culture) and their supposed descendants the Marsh Arabs cluster more with people of Arabia than anyone else on DNA tests. Just Google this.

Anyway back to the most recent migrations from what is today KSA and Arabia into KSA. Most of those tribes were Sunni such as Shammer, Tamim, Khafaja, Al-Ali, Malik, Ka'b, Assad, Khaled etc. but after settling in Southern Iraq, especially around Najaf and Karbala, where Shia Arabs had been dominating since the advent of Islam, they started to convert into Shia Islam. The forced Safavid conversion of Iran from mainly Sunni to Shia Islam in previous decades also had a thing to say.

However those who migrated North or West of Baghdad remained Sunni as that area of what later came to be Iraq was sparsely populated by Shias and moreover the dominant foreign power, was the Sunni Ottomans. That is why you to this day can find the same Arab tribes in Iraq belonging to different sects (either Shia or Sunni) due to their geographic location. For instance Shammar around Mosul are Sunni but those south of Baghdad are Shia. Same story with all of those tribes that I mentioned previously and many others.

The reason why the Iraqi government, Shia dominated, has aligned themselves with the Mullah's is due to the influence of the Islamic Shia Dawa party in Iraq (Abadis and Malikis party) and because Iran is the only or at least one of the very few Shia majority states in the world, tiny Bahrain and mostly secular/irreligious Azerbaijan being the other, majority Shia states who they can align themselves with. Moreover Iran has been ruled by Mullah's since 1979 and that is why Islamist Shia Arab political groups and certain people align themselves with that country in lack of better allies.

In fact it is in many ways the fault of various Arab regimes, KSA's included, and the Arab street, that we have contributed to many (thankfully only a minority) Shia Arabs aligning themselves with the Mullah's. However most Iranians, despite being majority Shia, are not very religious and are fueled by nationalism (most non-religious Iranians hate Arabs as well it seems, including Shia Arabs obviously) so once the Mullah's will be gone from Iran, the Shia Arabs will no longer be able to ally themselves with Iran, as their common interests will diverge.

Anyway I am hopeful that sectarianism will be a thing of the past in the Arab and Muslim world and if that occurs most of our problems, or at least A LOT of them, will be solved.

 

[Falcon29]

@Arabian Stallion

Good info, one thing I want to add, is that I agree lots of it is fueled by nationalism by both sides, and I don't like how religion is giving them excuse to do so. That's why the less religion, the less excuses, the better. Or maybe nationalism will remain sole cause for destabilization/tension in the east for years to come, I guess us Americans are not used to this kind of thing, because we are so far away and don't share many land borders. The ones we share with, we generally are dominate over them. Our tensions don't arise from nationalism, it's more about internal demographics/control issues. I like it better that way, though.

 

[Arabian Stallion]

That's true. It explains why the cultures of Iraq and Iran are very similar.

At the end of the day, all human civilizations and cultures can be traced back to one of three places: the Fertile Crescent, the Indus Valley, and China / East Asia.

Ultimately, there are no real differences. Even Persian and Arabic are distantly related to each other via the Nostratic language family:

Here's to a better future for the region.

Arabs, especially nearby ones such as those in Iraq and Arabia, share similar DNA to Iranians (who contrary to believe are not descendants of some nomadic "Aryans" from the Kazakh steppes as some of them believe, but are largely indigenous people of the Iranian Plateau) and pre-Arab/Islamic Semitic culture influenced Iran heavily on all fronts be it geography, alphabet, culture, architecture, symbols, religion etc. Later after the advent of the first Persian empire, they influenced various Semites and Arabs, albeit to a smaller degree, and after the advent of Islam the mutual influences continued albeit with an Arab upper hand IMO. Evident of almost 40% of the Farsi vocabulary emerging from Arabic, adoption of the Arabic alphabet, Islam etc. Then there were population movements from Arabia/Iraq into Iran and vice versa. Which we still feel today and all can see.
After all we are neighbors so it's only natural that there are common traits. Arab-Iranian hostilities are also totally overblown if you look at events from a historical perspective.

Arabs can say the same about nearby Southern Europeans, Horners, Anatolians, Caucasians and numerous others that we share a lot in common with. After all we are one big human family, lol. I would even claim that Arabs, at least those in Arabia, share quite a lot with many South Asians, mostly of Western South Asia. I recently read a very interesting paper on ancient Arabia-India (South Asia) ties from even before the Indus Valley Civilization which was a civilization that existed simultaneously with the Dilmun and Magan civilizations of Eastern Arabia. All 3 had close trade ties alongside nearby Sumer in Southern Iraq.

Also the first people who populated South Asia came from Arabia and I even thing that the ancient Vedoid element of South Asia can be found to this very day in small pockets of very isolated communities in Yemen and Southwestern Oman and especially Socotra.

 

[Kuwaiti Girl]

Arabs, especially nearby ones such as those in Iraq and Arabia, share similar DNA to Iranians (who contrary to believe are not descendants of some nomadic "Aryans" from the Kazakh steppes as some of them believe, but are largely indigenous people of the Iranian Plateau) and pre-Arab/Islamic Semitic culture influenced Iran heavily on all fronts be it geography, alphabet, culture, architecture, symbols, religion etc. Later after the advent of the first Persian empire, they influenced various Semites and Arabs, albeit to a smaller degree, and after the advent of Islam the mutual influences continued albeit with an Arab upper hand IMO. Evident of almost 40% of the Farsi vocabulary emerging from Arabic, adoption of the Arabic alphabet, Islam etc. After all we are neighbors so it's only natural that there are common traits. Arab-Iranian hostilities are also totally overblown if you look at events from a historical perspective.

Arabs can say the same about nearby Southern Europeans, Horners, Anatolians, Caucasians and numerous others that we share a lot in common with. After all we are one big human family, lol.

True. Languages and populations don't always spread together. For example, the Germanic-speaking English people are culturally and genetically much closer to the Celtic-speaking Irish people than they are to the Germanic-speaking Dutch people. Likewise, the Altaic-speaking Turks are culturally and genetically much closer to the Indo-European-speaking Greeks than they are to the Altaic-speaking Mongolians.

That's why I don't like it when people identify with their language family. People tend to mistakenly think that their language defines their culture/DNA/race.

 

[Arabian Stallion]

@Arabian Stallion

Good info, one thing I want to add, is that I agree lots of it is fueled by nationalism by both sides, and I don't like how religion is giving them excuse to do so. That's why the less religion, the less excuses, the better. Or maybe nationalism will remain sole cause for destabilization/tension in the east for years to come, I guess us Americans are not used to this kind of thing, because we are so far away and don't share many land borders. The ones we share with, we generally are dominate over them. Our tensions don't arise from nationalism, it's more about internal demographics/control issues. I like it better that way, though.

Ethnic nationalism in USA would be a huge failure considering the demographic makeup of the United States of America and the history and values of the country. That's not only the case in the US but all of the "New World". People in the US, Canada, Carribean and Latin America are not homogenous ethnicities but mixtures of numerous ethnicities. So ethnic nationalism is doomed to fail there. The closest we have seen is dividing people into races (skin color) but that is also a failed project given the demographic reality of North and South America.

You as one of the 3.5 million Arab Americans (1% of the population) would for instance be crushed by more dominant communities such as the German, English etc. ones. However my personal experience is that most Americans are mongrels ( ). By that I mean heavily mixed. They might identify with their paternal ancestry but that's about it.

The story is very different in the "Old World" (Europe, Asia, Africa).

Currently the region is not dominated by nationalism contrary to what many might think but sectarianism. Hence you have idiotic Arabs wishing ills for their brethren just due to difference in sect. Same can be said about many other peoples in the region. I don't understand but the ground realities in the region force people into thinking in such terms. Unfortunately. However I am quite confident that it will soon be a thing of the past as that thinking has led to nothing more than failure. That is why, as you rightly stated yesterday, peace and lasting stability in Iraq and Syria can only occur once the various groups (ethno-religious ones) have reached some kind of consensus. Otherwise liberating say Fallujah or Raqqah won't solve the underlining problems only the symptoms for some time but not the overall disease/cancer. The short-sightedness is also a part of the problem.

Ok, various Arab regimes and the Iranian regimes are vary of political opponents and minorities but aligning those groups won't solve anything on the long run but rather force those minorities to align themselves with foreign entities. That's why the only solution is inclusiveness and secularism. That's the best that we have currently the more I think about it to solve many of the problems at least on the short run. What people, in well-functioning democracies (call it what you want but something better than what we have now) will choose later on their own will be their choice and that of their future descendants. We will be buried and dead by then, lol.

True. Languages and populations don't always spread together. For example, the Germanic-speaking English people are culturally and genetically much closer to the Celtic-speaking Irish people than they are to the Germanic-speaking Dutch people. Likewise, the Altaic-speaking Turks are culturally and genetically much closer to the Indo-European-speaking Greeks than they are to the Altaic-speaking Mongolians.

That's why I don't like it when people identify with their language family. People tend to mistakenly think that their language defines their culture/DNA/race.

Yes, I have seen Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans (here on PDF) and various African (elsewhere) individuals who think that just because they share the same extremely large linguistic family with most Europeans, that they are in fact related to them. However in the real world Semitic-speaking Arabs, Jews etc. or Turkic-speaking Turks of Turkey, are much more closely related to NEARBY Europeans (mainly Southern Europeans) genetically and also culturally (which is only normal due to the geographic proximity and shared history) despite not sharing the same overall language family. It's quite hilarious especially if you come across those "Aryan" tools who often can be found among the Iranian diaspora. Funnily enough Arabs cluster more closely to Europeans (not surprisingly given geographic proximity, the history of human migrations and more recent history (shared empires) than Iranians but that's also another discussion, lol.

Actually Arabia alongside with East Africa has played an absolutely crucial role in the human migration history and not surpriginsly those two areas of the world have been inhabited by humans longer than any other regions of the world. Sadly both regions are still very much terra incognita when it comes to archaeology.

 

[Kuwaiti Girl]

Yes, I have seen Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans (here on PDF) and various African (elsewhere) individuals who think that just because they share the same extremely large linguistic family with most Europeans, that they are in fact related to them. However in the real world Semitic-speaking Arabs, Jews etc. or Turkic-speaking Turks of Turkey, are much more closely related to NEARBY Europeans (mainly Southern Europeans) genetically and also culturally (which is only normal due to the geographic proximity and shared history) despite not sharing the same overall language family. It's quite hilarious especially if you come across those "Aryan" tools who often can be found among the Iranian diaspora. Funnily enough Arabs cluster more closely to Europeans (not surprisingly given geographic proximity, the history of human migrations and more recent history (shared empires) than Iranians but that's also another discussion, lol.

It all boils down to the fact that identities are social constructs and largely based on false perceptions.

Really, there's no such thing as an Aryan, nor is there such thing as a Turanian or a Semite for that matter.

I'd love to see the day when people identify themselves exclusively as human beings and as unique individuals.

The hostility between adjacent/neighboring populations is attributed to the narcissism of petty differences.

 

[T-Rex]

this forum cannot be responsible for anything.. its upto you to take care. every country has different law, always follow the local law where you live.

Yes, that's what the ISIS terrorists say, shut up and obey what we say or else.....!

 

[livingdead]

Yes, that's what the ISIS terrorists say, shut up and obey what we say or else.....!

well the forum has no power outside virtual world.. lolz.. the mods are just common men you see on street.