ArabianEmpires&Caliphates
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,377
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Saudi Arabia still beheads people in public. I can ensure you that no country comes close to Saudi Arabia when it comes to enforcing sharia laws.
You can deny it all you want, but Wahhabism and the Saudi royal family go hand in hand and many people equate Wahhabism with the Saudi family. As for Iran, Iran is a democracy with theocratic elements. The President does not have to be a cleric. The head of the parliament doesn't have to be from clergy either. The same goes to the Army and even the IRGC. None of the commanders of the IRGC are clerics. Even the Supreme Leader who has to be a cleric is indirectly elected by people through the Council of Experts. A council of Islamic clerics whose members are directly elected by people provincially.
They are not ethnically Arabs. They are linked to the Imams in some way. Just because a person was linked to the House of Muhammad 1400 years ago that doesn't make them ethnically Arab.
China is not involved in the chaos in the Middle East. They are focused on their own internal growth. The US supports Israel and has a history of interference in the region. Israel is a far bigger threat than Turkey. We have our differences with Turkey, but Turkey is a rational player and our countries have always found a way to overcome our differences and live in peace. Republic of Azerbaijan is not a threat to us. Iran and Turkey are rivals, but they do not threaten each other for strategic reasons and because they know that they both are capable of hurting each other.
Are you seriously comparing Iran in 1970s to Saudi Arabia in 2020? Is that a joke? Comparing 50 years ago to now?! lol Obviously, I was comparing Iran in 1970s to the Middle East and North Africa in 1970s. You can't compare the standards of living in 1970s to now even for the same country.
The Shah was a very smart person but he was overthrown because Iranians wanted independence from the Western influence in Iran. If Saudi Arabians one day want the same thing, I am sure that the Saudi family will be overthrown in a matter of weeks or months.
We do not want you to cut your ties with Western countries. We want you to stop following what they dictate and help them advance their politics in the region. That's very different. We want you to act independently based on what is good for all of us, not what is good for them because you need them. And as your neighbor, that's a very reasonable request.
So what? Iran used to stone people to death until not long ago while such a thing has not occurred in KSA for decades and you cannot find any such footage from KSA (unlike beheadings) while you can find such videos from Iran.
KSA beheads or shots people (in public and non-public) while Iran hangs people with cranes in public. What is the difference? A beheading with a sword is one of the most quick and humane ways to go and also shows the seriousness of the crime and serves its purpose to scare away potential criminals.
There is no such thing as Wahhabism and every main sect in Islam (whether Sunni or Shia) is indigenous to KSA and non-Hanbalis are the majority in KSA (Shafi's and Malikis mainly) while the Shia minority are divided between Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaydis.
Anyway MbS is in power, there is not much so-called "Wahhabism" left.
Iran a democracy? You have to be joking. Your head of state and the ones that decides everything (at the end of the day) is the Supreme Leader. That and your Mullah/clergy equivalent of our Allegiance Council. Your parliament is equal to our Shura Council with the exception of you having a few political parties and politicians who must be approved by the Supreme Leader and his council before running and most of the time the end result is decided by the Supreme Leader and the IRGC who de facto rules the country and dominates the economy, military etc. Rouhani on his own has little to no power. Just a figurehead.
Much like our ministers etc. who can be sacked and replaced by the king at will.
In any case, is this a competition of who is more "democratic" or what? I personally am not in favor of Western democracy and I thought that you were against Western involvement and democracy is a Western concept after all.
If they are paternally Arab, they are ethnically Arab. Ethnicity in Arab culture (I imagine Iranian too) passes down from father to son. Last time I checked there are entire documentaries that talk about how the ancestors of Khomeini, Khamenei etc. migrated from KSA and the Arab world to Iran not many generations ago. The Safavids importing numerous Arab Shia clergy is documented in history as well. Those people tended and tend to intermarry with each other.
Arab Shia Ulema
After the conquest, Ismail began transforming the religious landscape of Iran by imposing Twelver Shiism on the populace. Since most of the population embraced Sunni Islam and since an educated version of Shiism was scarce in Iran at the time, Ismail imported a new Shia Ulama corps from traditional Shiite centers of the Arabic speaking lands, largely from Jabal Amil (of Southern Lebanon), Mount Lebanon, Syria, Eastern Arabia and Southern Iraq in order to create a state clergy.[38][39][40][41]Ismail offered them land and money in return for loyalty. These scholars taught the doctrine of Twelver Shiism and made it accessible to the population and energetically encouraged conversion to Shiism.[35][42][43][44] To emphasize how scarce Twelver Shiism was then to be found in Iran, a chronicler tells us that only one Shia text could be found in Ismail's capital Tabriz.[45] Thus it is questionable whether Ismail and his followers could have succeeded in forcing a whole people to adopt a new faith without the support of the Arab Shiite scholars.[37] The rulers of Safavid Persia also invited these foreign Shiite religious scholars to their court in order to provide legitimacy for their own rule over Persia.[46]
Abbas I of Persia, during his reign, also imported more Arab Shia Ulama to Iran, built religious institutions for them, including many Madrasahs (religious schools) and successfully persuaded them to participate in the government, which they had shunned in the past (following the Hidden imam doctrine).[47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam#Arab_Shia_Ulama
Then it has nothing to do with who country x or y in the region is allied to if NATO Turkey and Pro-Israel Azerbaijan is no problem. It is only a problem if KSA or the GCC or Arab states (Egypt etc.) have relations with the West or what?
Quite a contradiction as you clearly stated that you want Western interference to leave the region, I guess this entails that the same regional countries end their ties to the West.
That is why I wrote to you that it makes ZERO sense to compare MbS with Pahlavi and what he did in the 1970's in Iran with what MbS is doing in 2020. For starters, MbS was born and breed in KSA. He never left KSA. Unlike the Shah that was educated abroad and loved everything that was not Iranian and who was totally sold in the West to the extend that he tried to turn Iran into a Las Vegas. No such thing occurs in KSA. The House of Saudi have ruled parts of KSA (Najd) almost continuously for 300 years. They have intermarried with all the leading noble families in KSA, most powerful clans and tribes etc. You can't compare that with the Shah whose father was an ordinary peasant (soldier) who proclaimed himself as the Shah overnight in 1925. To put it simple, the House of Saud knows the "climate" of KSA and how far they can go with their reforms before endangering themselves (potentially). If not, they would not have survived this long because if the people want a leader gone (truly), he will be toppled. Just like widespread criticism of King Saud and his corruption/wastefulness, lead to the House of Saud being forced to take action and remove him from power because they knew that they risked their power if he had ruled longer while being so wasteful. The wastefulness of the king Fahd era has also largely ended. The actions of MbS (famous Hotel Ritz incident) also proves it as well as the economy of the region after the oil prices fell. A new reality has emerged which is why KSA is not scoring as bad corruption wise as most Muslim/developing nations as every international list proves and the corruption index.
We look at independent very differently. Using your logic Japan and South Korea are not independent while North Korea is. Similarly KSA is not independent but Iran is. 99.9% of all people in the world would prefer to live in those so-called non-independent nations. That is the reality.
KSA has acted against the West on numerous fronts since the West entered the region in fact. If not for the West, the Saudi Arabian Ikhwan would have conquered Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, most of Oman, Southern Iraq etc. KSA has been deifying the West in terms of internal affairs since always despite constant talk of democracy, reforms etc. KSA (in your own words) used to support Islamic causes often contrary to Western interests. KSA (people) continued to support and fund the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq that killed 1000's of US soldiers. KSA was behind the oil embargo on the US and West that crippled their economies. KSA was on the opposite end in the Israeli conflicts. KSA was openly against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The illusion of KSA and the West somehow being aligned on every front is an illusion. In fact we are drifting apart more and more by each day while getting closer to China and other emerging powers. Even Russia too.
But let us leave out third parties whether outsiders or regional ones. What I wrote initially, some kind of understanding being found, should be the priority. We won't ever agree with everything either. Our two peoples look at the region way too different for that to occur. For starters we look at the Arab world as our own backyard while your regime has expansionist ambitions in the same region. That will always clash. There are sectarian differences (for the religious lot) and then there are political ones. Of course not different to any relationship where there will always be some differences but nothing that can't eventually be solved for the greater good and I don't think that this can only be reduced to Western involvement in the region or not. It is much bigger than that. Remove the West, and I don't think that the region (currently) will stop conspiring against each other.
Anyway disagreements aside, nice talking to you.
Last edited: