What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Few inaccuracies in this post. I will address them soon although I must say you know a lot about South Asian history, more so than I would expect a foreigner to know.

Lol, I just read abit in my leisure time instead of watching soap operas, comedy political talk shows and chewing on propaganda. I did not say I am a historical authority. Feel free to correct those "few inaccuracies", you claimed. Though I believe it is pretty much accurate. At least accurate enough to answer Haman's question. But as they say, history has many perspectives. So there can be differences over explanations of each phenomenon.
 
.
Sorry for the delay. I was busy and your question is very complicated and needed a proper response. I will write in English so that others might find the response useful too.

We have to know the history and socio-political factors that make cold hearted mass murderer out of people. We can not form simplistic and moronic views on such phenomenon without knowing the depth of the issue. For instance, how Hitler becomes Hitler and mass murders tens of millions of people? How Stalin a mediocre and frail person manages to drive back Lenin and take over Soviet Union, causing one of the biggest mass murders of human history? We can not go on and answer these questions without knowing the history.

The group that has caused this latest mass murder is actually a follower of Deobandism. Almost all the horrible things that are happening in South Asia and attributed to "Muslims" are actually the doings of Deobandis. As you might also know Taleban were also Deobandis. So are the scumbags in Iranian Baluchistan. Now Deobandism has a very peculiar history shrouded in lots of secrecy. We don't exactly know what motivated its founding fathers to make it and for what purpose, but we know that they did. And boy, they were successful. But I can give you a condensed version of their history so that you can go and understand these people and the phenomena they cause better.

It all starts with Indian rebellion of 1857. What the Indians themselves call "Jang e Azadi e 1857". You see, at the height of British Raj (the name of the colonial government of India under the monarch of England), there were only one thousand British military officers in India. These one thousands officers from the rank of General to lieutenant ruled the whole of India (todays' India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). The rest of British army was actually made up of Indian soldiers who took their orders from British officers. This Indian army had been created by British government, based on the ethnicity, race and caste of Indians. For example British army would almost never hire a Brahman (an upper Hindu caste) because they were seen as too proud and unruly. They would hire say Punjabi Sikh, because they were seen docile yet brave enough.

But because of a multitude of factors from nationalism to freedom seeking feelings of Indians, a rebellion happened in the army of British Raj among these ordinary soldiers which were called "Sepoy", which is Anglicized of Farsi's Sepahi, meaning soldier. This rebellion spread throughout India and went beyond the barracks into civilian population, and it was nearly successful, threatening to wipe out the British presence in South Asia with certain massacre of all British people living luxurious lives there. But the bravery of British officers, their iron command system and the resolute will of the British Generals saved the day. You have to remember that these were not the days of Air support so the British officers were on their own as any help from England would have taken months to arrive probably even a year.

But two things saved the British without which the locals would have over-run them, no matter the bravery of British officer core. One was the railway that British had built at great cost, which then allowed the movement of loyal British troops and thus giving them mobility to mass troops and encircle the mutineers. And the second was the recent invention of telegraph, which was the top most technology of its time and that British Raj had also implemented it throughout India at great cost just before 1857. This allowed faster information processing by British military command than the leaders of mutiny were capable of coping with. The mutiny failed, at great human cost. But British learned a lesson. The greatest lesson that a colonial power can ever learn. That is to rule over a colony effectively, the most precious tools are socio-political tools. So they implemented alot of these in the days after this mutiny from categorizing the people of subcontinent into loyal feudals who were bestowed with land, power and money/disallowing education, land and wealth for disloyal tribes to more darker methods such as religious manipulations.

After this incident, Hindus were prioritized to receive secular education and were increasingly hired in bureaucracy of British Raj. Then a vast university sized, Sunni learning center was built, by British civil engineers to teach Sunnis. This university is located in Deoband, and Reza Shah's Tehran University or Amir Kabir's Dar-ul-Fonon dwarf in comparison to it both in beauty and massiveness. Out of this place a brand of Sunnism came out that is called deobandi. During the British Raj, this place used to take Muslim students from all over India, with fully paid scholarship for its several years of study (its policy was zero fee). It was a boarding university, meaning that during the time of the study, the pupil was fully committed, living on university campus and following a grilling and no nonsense schedule of studies. When these scholars were sent back to their villages and cities throughout India, they were appointed "Imams" to mosques and received salaries and food rations from the nearby British army cantonment.

These deobandis were the most loyal subjects that British Raj had among Muslim population of India. They pacified the population, and issued fatwas favorable to British Raj. To the extent that when the British government decided to breakup the British Raj and partition India, the deobandis were the only group in India which opposed it. They preferred to remain British subjects. When they saw that the die is cast and British were about to leave, they opposed the creation of Pakistan, preferring Hindu rule. But British abandoned them and created Pakistan over their objections.

When Pakistan was built, understandably, there was little sympathy for deobandis in this new state. They were almost seen as traitors and they were kept at fringes of political and military power of the new state. This changed during the Bengal uprising. During that uprising the Pakistan army was left alone fighting its own population. The only group that offered help to kill Bengalis was the deobandis. This was their chance to prove that they were "patriotic" Pakistanis. But these efforts failed and Pakistan partitioned in 1971. When West Pakistan became today's Pakistan, they were a defeated and humiliated nation. The political and military elite of Pakistan were in search of giving a new meaning to the demoralized nation of Pakistan. This new version came in the form of a harder Utopian Islam, predominantly deobandi version. Deobandis offered their services to Pakistan's military to unify the broken nation. This almost reached epic proportion under General Zia-ul-Haq's rule who elevated the deobandis from the fringes of political power into the center of the nations power politics. He needed them for his secret war that he was waging on Soviet Union in Afghanistan on the order of United States. In order to make deobandi even more hardcore and capable of withstanding Soviet military, Wahabi/Salafi preachers were imported from Saudi Arabia and these preachers upgraded the deobandis into a monstrous war ideology, which was fiercely anti-communist and anti-Shia. I guess you can figure it out yourself why.

After the Soviet withdrawal, Pakistan thought that it could use this same ideology to take Kashmir from India. But the Indian army in Kashmir did not budge as the Soviet military had in Afghanistan. During this time, a cold war of sorts also happened between Pakistan and Iran each supporting opposite groups in Afghanistan which resulted in Iranian diplomats being hanged in front of Iranian embassy when Taleban took over the embassy. Taleban were the ultimate deobandi force that ever came to existence. For a short while. Until, 9/11 happened. The monster had gone the full circle, hitting New York.

The rest you must know well. US went in to Afghanistan promising to hunt down each one of them "dead or alive". Pakistan till 2008 tried its best to atleast partially protect Taleban elements for later use in Afghanistan/Kashmir. But then the monster again went full circle and had started to hit Pakistan. Still Pakistan tried to protect them, since this ideology had become so central to "unity" of Pakistan and its strategic power, believing that this is just a misunderstanding and the Taleban will soon realize that, Pakistan is their master. But by 2013, it became clear in upper echelon of Pakistan's military structure that this was not a misunderstanding anymore and that Taleban had truly gone full circle, so a plan was put in motion for their complete termination despite strenuous objections of deobandis. Whether Pakistan army will ever be able to finish them is up for debate. But even if they do, new groups will emerge. Since the ideology and sympathies for this ideology is deep rooted in Pakistan's society now.

Now with this history in our hand, you will have the minimum requirement to understand the answer to your question. First of all, you should not underestimate the dark desires of humans, specially those arising from hatred and sense of being back-stabbed. From 1970, Pakistani army has been buddy buddy with this ideology and posing as its true friend. When in 2007, Pakistan army decided that it has had enough of deobandi friendship and attacked their flagship mosque in Islamabad as a warning to deobandis that their special relationship was over, the deobandis felt they had been betrayed and back-stabbed by Pakistan. Since deobandis always saw that Pakistan army eventually some day will become a deobandi army. It was too much for them. It was the second time that they were being betrayed. First by the British and now by Pakistan. So they declared war on Pakistan army.

These kids are just the latest causality of this war. A war that is going on in almost every territory of Pakistan nowadays. The reason, that the kids were targeted is rather technical. You see, Pakistan army is quite a powerful army and relatively well equipped, so taking it head-on is suicidal with no tactical benefit. But killing the children of Pakistan army officers and their teacher wives, drives the message right into the heart of Pakistan army. So attacking a school that caters to the children of personnel of Pakistan army becomes their plan. The choice of target is of course, inhuman and despicable but from the view point of deobandis who practice Takfirism, it is acceptable, since they sincerely believe that they are killing kafer, their wives and their illicitly begotten zena-zadeh children. Their enemies. From their ideology's point of view, Pakistan army has become mortad and thus a fair game along with their families.

Deobandis are searching for an identity, they never had. For a religion, they never had. For a country they never had. For a Utopia that is never possible. They were just a tool. Created and used. Who and for what purpose if at all, they are now being used, is a matter for future historians to ponder over their cup of coffee.

And rest assured, this is not the first or the last tragedy in human history. Take the example of female Chinese and Korean children who were used as sex slaves by Japanese army during the World War II. Each had to cater near to couple of hundred men each day. From morning to night, the soldiers were standing in line, and these little girls used to have a small break for lunch only (usually 10 minutes). Refusal meant torture to death or a quick dispatch to the dreaded and horrifying Unit 731 of Japanese Army for the termination as a test subject. After the war those who survived had told their liberators that they had lost all feelings, emotions, humanity and everything else. This is what happens when there is no religion. And that is what happens when we have "religion".

Ok few inaccuracies I noticed, first the 1857 mutiny did not lead the British to try and control religious groups. The British found it much easier to just execute hundreds of Imams who had incited the mutiny along with many Hindu groups that also took part. As you may already know the 1857 mutiny was by Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs did not take part as they could not look past their differences with Muslims. These Sikhs who as you mentioned made up most of the British Indian army played the largest part in suppressing the rebels. For a long time after this the Muslims were silenced. Now you say that the British created the Darul Uloom at Deoband, this is not the case. The Deobandi school of thought was made up from remnants of Imams who had incited revolt against the British. In fact the Deobandis were the loudest in claiming the need for jihad to remove the British from South Asia. This is because of the history of the mutiny which they still remembered fondly. Now you mentioned Deobandi Imams who made pro British fatwas, this is true but that is not because British set up the school, what they did do was buy out Imams after the fact to try and counter the school. They did the same with other movements such as the Barelvi movement which was a movement in opposition to the Deobandis more hardcore beliefs by buying out Imams to pass favorable fatwas for them. The only movement they did create themselves was the Ahmadi movement whose leader outlawed any sort of jihad against the Brits and to this day the Imams of this movement base themselves out of Britain. To say the Deobandis were the most loyal would be inaccurate other movements of Muslims were much more pacifistic in nature or like mentioned outright created by the Brits.

Another inaccuracy you stated was that the Brits pushed Hindus toward secular education and not Muslims. This is incorrect, before the Brits came along the main language in South Asia was Farsi and most of the best jobs were in the hands of Farsi speakers. When the Brits dropped Farsi as the main language it led to nearly the overnight collapse of Muslim power. Thereafter Muslims held a grudge against the Brits and when the Brits opened up schools (which btw taught English as well) it was the Muslims themselves who refused to attend. This only led to the further weakening of Muslims as without education most became poor except for the landowners who had inheritances from long before the Brits came along. This would continue until a man known as Syed Ahmad Khan would open the first institution for Muslims to try and get them involved in education. This university faced massive resistance from ironically Muslims themselves but is still functioning today in India, Aligarh Muslim University.

Now one more inaccuracy was your statement that Deobandis preferred to remain under Hindu rule and that was the reason for their opposition to Pakistan. That was not the case, in fact deobandis believed in Muslim rule in all of South Asia (they still do) and felt that a united country would further that cause (think 200 Million Muslims in India today versus 600-700 million today had there been no partition). For them it was simply about numbers, nothing else.

Now you are right about them being seen as traitors in Pakistan once it was established in fact they are still seen as such in many parts of Pakistan. Also you stated that deobandi Islam was used to reunite Pakistan, that is not the case. After 1971 power went to a man named Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was a socialist and it was that platform which he used to try and rebuild Pakistan. The rest I see no issue with except the part of Zia making them mainstream. Now this is where it kind of gets tricky, Zia was no deobandi let us get that clear. He was a straight up wahabbi and he spent much of his time in Arab countries even taking part in the Jordan black September (although to what extent is up for debate). Also while the Taliban are Deobandi that is just in name, it should be noted that most madarssas that they attended got their religious material from the Saudis themselves. Which you mentioned, so deobandis in Pakistan are basically wahabbis, the line between Deobandi and Wahabbi itself is quite blurred today in Pakistan. In fact most use the terms interchangeably. The deobandis in Pakistan compared to the ones in India are quite far apart. The ones in Pakistan being predisposed to wahabbism are more prone to violence compared to the Indians. That is largely due to wahabbi influence. The only Indian Muslims going to fight in Syria are not deobandis but salafis. The difference still exists in India whereas in Pakistan it largely does not.
 
. .
@rmi5
@Azizam

In this video he wasn't as bad. Still an apologist in certain parts, but not as bad. The overall message was good.

@New @haman10 @kollang @rahi2357

you guys should watch it too
I do believe in karma to some extent. Do you remember how some countries harbored these goons against USSR? USSR presence in Afghanistan was nothing but positive. Haalaa inhaa bargashtand be khouneh va mikhaan ke eslaameshoun ra be pakestan ham bebaran ;) Karma hamisheh hast, Iran ham belakhareh yek rouzi in hameh kesaafat kaari hayi ke anjam mideh, behesh barmigardeh :disagree:
 
.
Ok few inaccuracies I noticed, first the 1857 mutiny did not lead the British to try and control religious groups. The British found it much easier to just execute hundreds of Imams who had incited the mutiny along with many Hindu groups that also took part. As you may already know the 1857 mutiny was by Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs did not take part as they could not look past their differences with Muslims. These Sikhs who as you mentioned made up most of the British Indian army played the largest part in suppressing the rebels. For a long time after this the Muslims were silenced. Now you say that the British created the Darul Uloom at Deoband, this is not the case. The Deobandi school of thought was made up from remnants of Imams who had incited revolt against the British. In fact the Deobandis were the loudest in claiming the need for jihad to remove the British from South Asia. This is because of the history of the mutiny which they still remembered fondly. Now you mentioned Deobandi Imams who made pro British fatwas, this is true but that is not because British set up the school, what they did do was buy out Imams after the fact to try and counter the school. They did the same with other movements such as the Barelvi movement which was a movement in opposition to the Deobandis more hardcore beliefs by buying out Imams to pass favorable fatwas for them. The only movement they did create themselves was the Ahmadi movement whose leader outlawed any sort of jihad against the Brits and to this day the Imams of this movement base themselves out of Britain. To say the Deobandis were the most loyal would be inaccurate other movements of Muslims were much more pacifistic in nature or like mentioned outright created by the Brits.

Another inaccuracy you stated was that the Brits pushed Hindus toward secular education and not Muslims. This is incorrect, before the Brits came along the main language in South Asia was Farsi and most of the best jobs were in the hands of Farsi speakers. When the Brits dropped Farsi as the main language it led to nearly the overnight collapse of Muslim power. Thereafter Muslims held a grudge against the Brits and when the Brits opened up schools (which btw taught English as well) it was the Muslims themselves who refused to attend. This only led to the further weakening of Muslims as without education most became poor except for the landowners who had inheritances from long before the Brits came along. This would continue until a man known as Syed Ahmad Khan would open the first institution for Muslims to try and get them involved in education. This university faced massive resistance from ironically Muslims themselves but is still functioning today in India, Aligarh Muslim University.

Now one more inaccuracy was your statement that Deobandis preferred to remain under Hindu rule and that was the reason for their opposition to Pakistan. That was not the case, in fact deobandis believed in Muslim rule in all of South Asia (they still do) and felt that a united country would further that cause (think 200 Million Muslims in India today versus 600-700 million today had there been no partition). For them it was simply about numbers, nothing else.

Now you are right about them being seen as traitors in Pakistan once it was established in fact they are still seen as such in many parts of Pakistan. Also you stated that deobandi Islam was used to reunite Pakistan, that is not the case. After 1971 power went to a man named Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He was a socialist and it was that platform which he used to try and rebuild Pakistan. The rest I see no issue with except the part of Zia making them mainstream. Now this is where it kind of gets tricky, Zia was no deobandi let us get that clear. He was a straight up wahabbi and he spent much of his time in Arab countries even taking part in the Jordan black September (although to what extent is up for debate). Also while the Taliban are Deobandi that is just in name, it should be noted that most madarssas that they attended got their religious material from the Saudis themselves. Which you mentioned, so deobandis in Pakistan are basically wahabbis, the line between Deobandi and Wahabbi itself is quite blurred today in Pakistan. In fact most use the terms interchangeably. The deobandis in Pakistan compared to the ones in India are quite far apart. The ones in Pakistan being predisposed to wahabbism are more prone to violence compared to the Indians. That is largely due to wahabbi influence. The only Indian Muslims going to fight in Syria are not deobandis but salafis. The difference still exists in India whereas in Pakistan it largely does not.

Thanks for your informative post. I learned new things in it. But I do not agree with all of it. For example, I have doubts about your version of how Deobandi school was created. With British Raj designing its building. How its funding and recruitment came about? This was not a time of internet, advertisement, etc. Nothing of this scale could be done without at least some degree of state power. Even if deobandis was founded by those remnants, the possibility can not be discounted that they had been bought or forced into cooperation or they would have been executed like others. At any rate, the movement was instrumental in propagation and stabilizing British Raj.

I did not mean that Hindus were pushed towards secular education. I said, prioritized. British were smart governors. They did not unnecessarily create such discrimination that could jeopardize their political power. Rather, they were looking favorably to Hindus being in position of bureaucratic power than Muslims or Sikhs. But your larger point about British outlawing Farsi is correct in that, the entire educated class of Muslims suddenly became officially "illiterate" and thus left out of structures of power and decision making.

I do not think deobandis themselves could by any possibility of imagination think that as India was moving towards self-governance and independence, based on a representative system, Muslims could be in position of absolute power since Hindus would have dominated them, not only in numbers but also because of their status in education as well as their firm grip on bureaucracy of India. This idea of complete domination of India was just an excuse for them to oppose the creation of Pakistan since they thought, they would become a minority in such a state among other denomination of Muslims, which actually did happen eventually. Correct me if I am wrong, but to this day, deobandi leaders have not apologized for their wrong decision on this issue and stand by their original idea of opposition to creation of Pakistan. Now, for another state such a triviality would not matter. But for Pakistan a country based on an ideology it is a poison for its foundation.

I did not know that General Zia was a Wahabi. It is new for me. I always thought he was a deobandi. But then it explains his policies. But overall, I believe the Islamization of Pakistan actually started during the time of Butto. He was the guy who facilitated the deobandis into corridors of power. Even his choice of putting Zia in charge of army an institution that was always run by liberal Generals is an example. He was the guy who started to supply Pakistani labor to Arab world and aligning Pakistan with Saudi Arabia and Arab causes (let me remind you this, over the objections of Iranian government at the time).

There are two things that make me perplexed. And this goes to say who complex South Asia can be. First, the 1857 rebellion, in which Muslims and Hindus were side by side, trying to rid themselves of a colonial power. I guess the only other such a rebellion at such a scale against a colonial power was the American revolution which was more successful than Indian one. But despite such unity, 90 years later, they were at each other's throat. What changed in these 90 years. I believe without understanding these 90 years, Pakistan India relationship can never be normalized.

The other perplexing thing for me is the conduct of General Zia. He tried everything in his power to turn Pakistan from largely a Sufi nation to a Wahabi power house. Under his watch Pakistan made its first nukes. But then he did not transfer this technology to Saudi Arabia. Rather, he swiftly gave the technology to Iran for a very meager and symbolic amount of money. Pakistan at the time was awash with dollars that US was providing it for the covert war against Soviets, so it was not about money. So why he, despite being a Wahabi, gives Iran the technology but leaves Saudis, who had funded Pakistan's program, in the cold? I guess we will never know the answer.

But it is really sad, that all these dangerous ideologies are merging into each other in Pakistan, as you say with distinctions between them evaporating. Mutations at such level would mean, extreme difficulty in tracking them down and countering them both in physical form as well as ideologically. It is almost like a mutation making a hybrid zombie-vampire-terminator that looks and walks exactly like a human and even probably taking its orders from somewhere else. How would you fight such a thing if there are too many of them right among you? I guess, dark days would be ahead.
 
.
What do you mean by equal persecution? o_O
Meaning is to treat muslims in the same way they treat non-muslims.

Who are the extremists? Count them up. And then decide if they are minority.
Anyone who opposes someone else's basic human rights is an extremist. In this case I am not talking about freedom of speech or democracy but rights that are as simple as beleiving whatever you want, ability to dress whatever you want etc. as long as it doesn't harm another individual.

@rmi5
@Azizam

In this video he wasn't as bad. Still an apologist in certain parts, but not as bad. The overall message was good.

@New @haman10 @kollang @rahi2357

you guys should watch it too
I agree but the way I see it is that he constantly tries to put this idea that islamism is not as bad as what people think it is while I believe that it's even worse than what we think of it. There's absolutely no chance of Islamism coexisting with the rest of the world and it will only create even more problems in the future so why should we fool ourselves into beleiving otherwise?

Overall I like this video than the usual "don't blame the whole religion for the action of few individuals" type videos he usually does.
 
.
Meaning is to treat muslims in the same way they treat non-muslims.


Anyone who opposes someone else's basic human rights is an extremist. In this case I am not talking about freedom of speech or democracy but rights that are as simple as beleiving whatever you want, ability to dress whatever you want etc. as long as it doesn't harm another individual.


I agree but the way I see it is that he constantly tries to put this idea that islamism is not as bad as what people think it is while I believe that it's even worse than what we think of it. There's absolutely no chance of Islamism coexisting with the rest of the world and it will only create even more problems in the future so why should we fool ourselves into beleiving otherwise?

Overall I like this video than the usual "don't blame the whole religion for the action of few individuals" type videos he usually does.
Things are changing in the West thankfully. For example:

15,000 join anti-Islam protest in eastern Germany
Part-DV-DV1928715-1-1-0.jpg


Part-DV-DV1928675-1-1-0.jpg


15,000 join anti-Islam protest in eastern Germany - Yahoo News

--------------------------------------------------------------
Wahabi rats are everywhere.
10325707_753393268070428_445775948533338241_n.jpg
 
.
Meaning is to treat muslims in the same way they treat non-muslims.


Anyone who opposes someone else's basic human rights is an extremist. In this case I am not talking about freedom of speech or democracy but rights that are as simple as beleiving whatever you want, ability to dress whatever you want etc. as long as it doesn't harm another individual.


I agree but the way I see it is that he constantly tries to put this idea that islamism is not as bad as what people think it is while I believe that it's even worse than what we think of it. There's absolutely no chance of Islamism coexisting with the rest of the world and it will only create even more problems in the future so why should we fool ourselves into beleiving otherwise?

Overall I like this video than the usual "don't blame the whole religion for the action of few individuals" type videos he usually does.

Well, we need to consider that religious non-muslims are not much different from muslims. remember what central african christians and Buddhist Burmese did to muslims. The big evil is religionofascism, not only islamofascism. Islamofascism has only achieved more attention because of more power they have, and locating in ME which makes every move of them to be broadcasted worldwide.

@Abii @Ostad
Are you guys online?
 
.
Well, we need to consider that religious non-muslims are not much different from muslims. remember what central african christians and Buddhist Burmese did to muslims. The big evil is religionofascism, not only islamofascism. Islamofascism has only achieved more attention because of more power they have, and locating in ME which makes every move of them to be broadcasted worldwide.

@Abii @Ostad
Are you guys online?
yes, whats up bro.?:-)
 
. . . . . . .

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom