Iranians vs Arabs - The Dilemma for the Muslim World

[Developereo]

Instead of wringing our hands and wishing the Arabs and Persians would grow up and get along, we should let them be. Either they will wake up and see the world passing them by, or they will be at each others' throats until death. The Iranians, at least, are developing their country; the Arabs, on the other hand, have no work ethic. Aside from their foreign-run oil wells, they are developing foreign-run tourism parks. All the work in the oil-rich Arab countries is done by foreigners. Once the oil runs out and the last foreigner leaves, they are going back to camels and tents.

We should learn from India -- they are friends with both Arabs and Iranians. We need to start looking after our own interests instead of being caught up in this-or-that brotherhood nonsense.

 

[nForce]

@ U571
I have been suggested by somebody to stay on topic,which I intend to do.But since you asked,I will try to break down things for you.

US is also detroying billions worth properties in pakistan, due to US there are no investers in pakistan, US is giving nuke tech to our enemies, it sells planes on condition that we never use it against our enemy. uncle sam never came to help us in 1971, it was all deception, which infact helped india.

US is actually helping Pakistan with WoT,the US drones are saving a great many lives of Pakistani soldiers many of whom would have died had there been a direct conflict with the taliban.Had there been no US,Pakistan would have been talibanised by now.
Regarding the 7th fleet,I suggest you to refer to some proper historical sources.Do I see a conspiracy theory in the making?? There are just so many already running amok.

uncle sam is aiming to make balochistan independent, it doesnt recognises BLA as terrorist group, USA doesnt eliminate indian threat at pak afghan border, while it likes to give benefit to our rival india, uncle sam views pakistan only as a tool to win war in afghanistan, after the mess in all done and nothing remains, it expects pakistan to clean afghan mess..

Come up with some proofs/evidences stating US is aiming to liberate Balochistan.Yet another conspiracy theory??

for decades US is promising to help solve kashmir problem, which is also a fake promise after all, uncle sam thinks pakistanis are terrorists, it while indians are issued visas at very easy, pakistanis are seldomly issued student visas thus it only entertains indians to study there..

wow...as if China did a lot in solving Kashmir issue.Token gestures are one thing and really doing something that is reflected in ground reality is totally another.Neither US nor China will actually get their hands dirty.It is a problem with India and Pakistan and only these two countries will have to solve it.
Having one as an ally doesnt mean that he will do your every bidding starting from providing military and technological aid,fighting wars,solving land disputes.If they will do everything,then what are you there for???

we have lost self deginity by laying too much into uncle sam friendship, while india is in bed with russia too, uncle sam wants to gift india more despite its rusky relationship
and the story can on and on..

India,is a part of NAM,while its Pakistan which always chose to be in somebody's bed.
Pakistan obliged to US by letting them use the airbases back from the 1960s.No foreign power has ever operated in India.I think well know about U2 incident here.

and lastly nforce, stop your BS childish posts, posts after posts you are proving your self to be a big time child..

You cannot really exhibit how foul mouthed you are and dont say why...Show me why the posts are childish,else it you whom I should perceive as the child here.....

 

[U-571]

Instead of wringing our hands and wishing the Arabs and Persians would grow up and get along, we should let them be. Either they will wake up and see the world passing them by, or they will be at each others' throats until death. The Iranians, at least, are developing their country; the Arabs will be back to camels and tents once the oil runs out.

We should learn from India -- they are friends with both Arabs and Iranians. We need to start looking after our own interests instead of being caught up in this-or-that brotherhood nonsense.

this or that brother hood????????, doesnt iran fall under this or that brotherhood definition, , every body knows, it is iran and not pakistan which uses shia card every time, every it supports militant shia some times.. this kutter irani shia regime will not befried a sunni pakistan, one time visited an iranian forum and first i was asked was whether i was sunni or shia, so is it pakistan or iran at fault mr???

 

[Developereo]

this or that brother hood????????, doesnt iran fall under this or that brotherhood definition, , every body knows, it is iran and not pakistan which uses shia card every time, every it supports militant shia some times.. this kutter irani shia regime will not befried a sunni pakistan, one time visited an iranian forum and first i was asked was whether i was sunni or shia, so is it pakistan or iran at fault mr???

Most of that happened after Zia. Iranians see us as a country without self-respect; a bunch of beggars who sold out to the Saudis (and the Americans).

We can never command other countries' respect until we stop begging for money and become self-reliant. Then we should pursue a policy of neutrality between Arabs and Persians, Sunni and Shia.

Arabs are important to us because they are a rich market for our goods. Iran is important to us because they are right next to us and, once Iran becomes friendly with Pakistan, Afghanistan will fall in line.

 

[U-571]

we think of iranians as camel riders, if they think of us as beggars

 

[SaifullahK]

You are right about the sentiment, but wrong about the flag. Your real best friend is:

There is some element of truth to this. The Christian West has been a friend to Muslims of South Asia.

In 1906, the All India Muslim League was founded on the basis of loyalty to the British.

Later, before the partition of India and independence, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in intimate contact with Winston Churchill, who was advising him how to deal with the treacherous Hindus in the Congress Party.

After independence, Jinnah immediately sought assistance from America, on the basis of Pakistan's strategic location. Pakistan has been nurtured by America right from its birth.

In 1971, the Bengalis became disloyal, and Pakistan was faced with a difficult situation. It was American intervention that stopped Indira Gandhi from attacking West Pakistan. The US had sent its aircraft carrier, and had also tried hard to get the Chinese to attack the Indians.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, although based on Chinese technology, has been supported by America. When Abdul Qadeer Khan Saheb was arrested in the Netherlands for espionage, it was the CIA that got him released.

Even today, Pakistan is receiving weaponry from America that can only be used against India.

China and Pakistan are the conjoined twins of Asia, and Pakistan values the Chinese relationship above all else. But the continuous and generous American assistance should also be acknowledged.

 

[r3alist]

Instead of wringing our hands and wishing the Arabs and Persians would grow up and get along, we should let them be. Either they will wake up and see the world passing them by, or they will be at each others' throats until death. The Iranians, at least, are developing their country; the Arabs, on the other hand, have no work ethic. Aside from their foreign-run oil wells, they are developing foreign-run tourism parks. All the work in the oil-rich Arab countries is done by foreigners. Once the oil runs out and the last foreigner leaves, they are going back to camels and tents.

We should learn from India -- they are friends with both Arabs and Iranians. We need to start looking after our own interests instead of being caught up in this-or-that brotherhood nonsense.

why should we let them be - this issue affects pakistan and if they do go into open conflict what does pakistan do without offending one or the other?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

The Persian-Arab conflict has been around for thousands of years.

Every Iranian I have met to this date, was a wanna-be Zoroastrian or an atheist so i can't say much about them and their 'islamic unity' stuff.

on the other hand, some arabs just want to develop their country and could care less about Iran and 'islamic unity'.

Oh and, why should we care? The one that helps us out the most is our bigger friend.

sane... very sane

I believe this is atleast one conflict that Pakistan should keep itself out of for their own good and not take sides.

 

[nForce]

why should we let them be - this issue affects pakistan and if they do go into open conflict what does pakistan do without offending one or the other?

How exactly the issue affects Pakistan??

 

[muse]

why do a lot of arabs and iranians pretend that they care about islamic unity when they can barely get on with one another?

The same question of course applies to many Pakistanis - be that as it may, what is really going on with this "Islamic" this and "Islamic" that? and Muslims taking positions without reference or precedence?

Ideology - that's what this ferment within Islam and among Muslims is all about -- But wait, isn't all life the animation of ideology, so then, what about ideology, what kind of ideology, what kind of use of ideology, is at the center of this ferment among Muslims ?

Of course there are any number of responses to these questions that readers will find persuasive, I hope readers will consider whether "Faith" "Eman" (by definition a belief without confirming circumstances) can have organizing role in modern progressive politics and governance? Now, don't misunderstand, it is not being suggested that "Faith" "Eman" has no role in conscience, quite the opposite (indeed this thread is motivated primarily by conscience), nor is it being suggested this role in and appeal to, conscience, ought not be organized, what is being requested is that we consider whether ethnic, geo-political, linguistic and other elements of the ideology and politics of Identity, be allowed to fashion debates among Muslims?

We all know how these two states and the dominant strands of what passes for religious thought in these two countries (and in Pakistan) use religion for political and geo-political interests of the state, and we realize that it is not only sad and detrimental to these states but to the larger communities of Islam itself.

 

[Durran3]

Well its a given fact that the history of Pakistan and Pakistani's have strong roots in both the Indian and the Persian culture. Allama Iqbal wrote his poetry in Farsi and even Pushto has evolved from a lot of words coming directly from Farsi. The whole concept of Pakistani's wanting to become Arab is something that exploded under that two faced general called Zia.. a friend posted this.

I am a pathan and the culture of Khyber Pukhtoonkhwah is very very secular in nature as compared to what these fundos are trying to portray now a days. Basically they are trying to bring in another foreign culture in our lands, which is totally alien to us. Our culture has deep roots in Persian and Hindu traditions. Dancing, music, poetry, painting comes natural to many Pakistani's and Pakhtun people.

The roots of this rise is fundamentalism dates back to Zia's days as he was the one to start screwing up with Pakistan culture... It was during his time that Hindi words were driven out from everyday use and were replaced with Arabic ones. Persian language, which was once said to be the second language of Indian subcontinent, and was being taught in many schools was dropped and replaced with Arabic, because of Iran's Shiite influence. They traditional 'Khuda Hafiz' (Persian for 'God be with you') was replaced by 'Allah Hafiz' (Arabic for 'God be with you').

 

[LaBong]

Persians have deep influence in sub-continent, can't say the same thing for Semitics.

 

[Tshering22]

Yes I also agree that it would benefit all Muslims if all Muslims got along with each other, but the enemies of Muslims will never allow it to happen. They will always find a way to drive a wedge between Muslims.

I'm all for Muslim unity.

Yes I also agree that it would benefit all Muslims if all Muslims got along with each other, but the enemies of Muslims will never allow it to happen. They will always find a way to drive a wedge between Muslims.

In what way will it benefit "all Muslims"? Iranians are non-religious or pro-Zoroastrian in nature especially those who come out and take their Persian history of more importance than Islam itself. Secondly Arabs are totally and I mean 100% dependent on non-Muslim Westerners and South Asian expats for everything. All those high rise buildings, those wonderful shiny towers and those clean dazzling roads are all planned, maintained and managed by non-Muslim foreigners (Westerners) while the middle and lower tier of work is mainly managed by humungous Indian and other Asian expatriates.

Iran is in self-imposed isolation as a country and despite its hard efforts to become independent parallel to Western development, without any help from outside it is difficult to reach that level of technological and engineering advancement.

Iran's turning anti-West is of zero effect to anyone around the world due to its limited political reach even within the much touted Muslim world. Arabs cannot become independent of West and turn against them because everything of theirs is by non-Muslim outsiders. The moment they turn anti-West it is their end and nobody can do anything about it.

So rather than keeping focus how these two improve, you should think along Turkey's lines of how to carve out a place around the world that commands respect automatically. Even many practical Pakistani members here on PDF say that this concept of Islamic union is defunct today since the day medieval Ottoman empire was extinguished.

Today, all countries are in "every man for himself" contest. Arabs know this and hence are focusing on individual development. Common Iranians who're despise their current government, also know this but despite their intelligence and capabilities, since they cannot opt for another government, they're not getting a chance to try out new strategies of being independent.

Pakistan IMO should follow Turkish example; rather than turning anti-West and anti-non-Muslim, maintain good ties with all, but also maintain your independence.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

they fight mainly because they are divided into different sects .. .

 

[r3alist]

The same question of course applies to many Pakistanis - be that as it may, what is really going on with this "Islamic" this and "Islamic" that? and Muslims taking positions without reference or precedence?

Ideology - that's what this ferment within Islam and among Muslims is all about -- But wait, isn't all life the animation of ideology, so then, what about ideology, what kind of ideology, what kind of use of ideology, is at the center of this ferment among Muslims ?

Of course there are any number of responses to these questions that readers will find persuasive, I hope readers will consider whether "Faith" "Eman" (by definition a belief without confirming circumstances) can have organizing role in modern progressive politics and governance? Now, don't misunderstand, it is not being suggested that "Faith" "Eman" has no role in conscience, quite the opposite (indeed this thread is motivated primarily by conscience), nor is it being suggested this role in and appeal to, conscience, ought not be organized, what is being requested is that we consider whether ethnic, geo-political, linguistic and other elements of the ideology and politics of Identity, be allowed to fashion debates among Muslims?

We all know how these two states and the dominant strands of what passes for religious thought in these two countries (and in Pakistan) use religion for political and geo-political interests of the state, and we realize that it is not only sad and detrimental to these states but to the larger communities of Islam itself.

ideology, shared history, shared belief, shared customs - whatever you want to call it there is enough in "common" to create something between nations of the ME (and pakistan) that is progressive and mutually beneficial - so what school of thought is stopping this amongst the arabs and persians? - and why is it so compelling that arabs/persians can deny our countries shared prosperity, PEACE and co-operation - this is the main bone of contention