What's new

Neo-sectarianism and an intra-Muslim cold war?

explorer9

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
The Muslim world has had its share of sectarianism in the past but its modern incarnations pose a different set of challenges. Neo-sectarianism is different from the medley of traditional theological and juridical differences among Muslims. It is primarily an ideological and geo-political phenomenon. Neo-sectarianism among Sunnis and Shias is increasingly becoming part of the new proxy wars in the Middle East, running the risk of an intra-Muslim cold war.

The good news is that the vast majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims do not see themselves as soldiers of a sectarian war. The bad news is that historical grievances and theological differences are manipulated to raise tensions. Neo-sectarianism is thoroughly political and driven by a mixture of what Ibn Khaldun called ‘asabiyyah, which means group solidarity, identity politics and power struggle. When misused, ‘asabiyyah can lead to division and fighting rather than unity and creativity as Ibn Khaldun hoped the Muslim communities of his time would do.

Today, group identities are much more complex and sophisticated, intertwined with a wide range of social, economic and political factors, which shape identities across the Muslim world. Recognizing this complexity is vital for managing and overcoming sectarian tensions. Pitting Sunni ‘asabiyyah against Shia ‘asabiyyah does not solve the problem.

Attempts at Sunni-Shiite rapprochement in the modern period have not been in vain. In 1959, Mahmud Shaltut, the Shaykh of al-Azhar University, issued a fatwa authorizing the teaching of Shia jurisprudence as part of al-Azhar’s curriculum. This was reciprocated by Ayatullah Burujardi, one of the most influential Shia scholars of his time. Shaltut and Burujardi opened the door for a serious dialogue between Sunnis and Shias.

Ayatollah Khumeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution in Iran, was an advocate of Sunni-Shia reconciliation and played a key role in opening new lines of communication. In February 2007, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential Sunni scholar, came together on Al Jazeera and called for ending hostilities and fighting between Sunnis and Shias. This was followed by another milestone event on March 3, 2007: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged to work for intra-Muslim unity in view of the increasing tensions between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, the Gulf and elsewhere. More could have been built on these initiatives.

The Arab Spring changed much of this at the political level. The Syrian crisis put major players at odds against each other, leading to imaginary maps of Shia alliances against Sunni blocks. The Syrian regime’s Alawite identity matters but does not define the conflict in Syria. The power struggle between the Syrian regime, Iran, Russia and Hizbullah on the one hand, and the opponents of the regime in Damascus can take on sectarian colors but cannot be defined as a Sunni-Shia armageddon. The alleged convergence of sectarian identities and policy choices is not backed by the facts on the ground. Here are few examples: From a religious and doctrinal point of view, the Alawite Baath regime in Syria has very little to do with Twelver Shias. The nationalist and secular Baath regime has no ideological affiliation with either Iran or Hezbullah in Lebanon. Hezbullah is an Islamist movement, fighting against Israeli occupation and expansionism. Its political alliance with Damascus is a matter of political convenience, not religious doctrine or sectarian solidarity.

Hamas is closely related to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a typically Sunni, Arab, Islamist movement. The Hamas political bureau came to Damascus and developed good relations with the Syrian regime until the Syrian uprising in early 2011. Its alliance with Syria was a matter of political convenience because most Arab states, under pressure from the US and Israel, refused to host it. Now Hamas has left Damascus.

Turkey developed good relations with the Syrian regime, fully knowing its Alawite base but cut relations when Damascus began to kill people en masse. Turkey’s policy of engagement was not sectarian. Nor was its decision to distance itself from the regime’s brutal war on all Syrians.

Turkey supported Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia, in his first term and signed over 40 agreements between the two countries. When Maliki tried one-man politics in a country like Iraq, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan distanced himself. Sectarian considerations played practically no role.


Turkey supports Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, values its bi-lateral relations but opposes Iran’s policy on Syria. Turkey’s being Sunni or and Iran’s being Shia does not explain these policy choices.

The new power struggle concentrating on the Syrian crisis in the Middle East is an attempt to create an “intra-Muslim cold war” through sectarian tensions and identity politics. Political and religious leaders and others must stand against this extremely dangerous game.

Neo-sectarianism and an intra-Muslim cold war?



A very true potrait of reality.Politics is about power. Secterianism is just a tool used by some to achieve power.....
 
A wonderfully balanced article on shiet-Sunnite conflict by Ibrahim Kalin

expecting the comments of fellow forumers...
 
@ Zulkarneyn, expecting the comments on the above article, begin & enrich the positive debate for the same.
 
Yes, i was gonna write an answer but had some things to do. The article articulates the realities of Middle East sectarian nature pretty good. As i wrote before, countries like Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia MUST have positive relations, because we are neighbors and if we want the geographical boundaries to remain identical the next couple of decades/centuries we need to develop a region of peace and cooperation - just like EU.

As the article denotes, the region was actually experiencing some positive developments right until Assad chose to answer very harshly towards his people's demands of democracy and rights. Syria had excellent relations with Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. As the article rightly underlines, religion did not play a big role in the conducts of its foreign relations. We can talk about the current scenario in pages and how we came to be like we are right now in ME, but that would be a waste of energy and time, we can individually do that. Therefor i think it will be much more beneficial to look at solutions - how can we solve the issues, grievances, injustices in Middle East?

Firstly Iranian politicians need to move closer to Ankara. The more they distance themselves from Turkey the worse the situation for both Iran and Syria will get. This is fact. Iran's last friend in the ME was Turkey. Turkey did not approve sanctions against Iran in UN and we always supported Iran in its stance to develop its Nuclear for peaceful purpose. Erdogan has countless of times called the West a hypocrit for closing her eyes to Israel's nuclear prowess while totally focusing on Iran and manipulating the international community. Notice how Obama tries to create his own world construction by excluding Iran from the so-called "international community". These are all games in politics and some countries who have more and better resources exploit and manipulate them to fulfill their own purpose.
Iran being almost totally isolated cannot articulate its own point of view the same way powerful countries like the US or EU does. Hence we are getting a very negative picture of Iran through these media. The reason Israel is totally left alone, or in fact supported by her Western friends is because of how the Israelis are excellent in exactly this game of politics. They are active and they know how to manipulate the West in making them believe that their goals are identical even though it definitely is not. The paradigm in the US belongs to the Jewish lobbies, and a shift in this paradigm is unspeakable, at least now it is.

1: Iran needs to get on the same page with Turkey. As the two most powerful countries in the ME we need to use our prowess for the greater good. Iran and Turkey should mutually fight the PKK which is a headache in the region. We also need to adress the problems in Syria and call for an end to Assad's brutality. Iran has nothing to lose, on the quite contrary many things to win with being friendly towards Turkey. We are adressing Iran's view in the international arena and as long as Turkey stays friend with Iran the likelihood of war decreases. I want to ask our Iranian members here: What can you possibly gain by supporting Syria, and what will it cost you?

2: Turkey needs to stand tougher against the West concerning Iran. We need to move towards the East since the future lies there. The West is slowly moving towards failure, this is clear as a crystal. I know the majority of our export goes to EU countries, but that does not mean our hands and legs are bound by them. We can and we should act by our own will and analyze what will benefit us in the longer run.

3: Saudi Arabia needs to develop friendly ties with Iran and the Shias' generally. As the article underlines, the sectarian conflict happens majorily between Shias and Sunnis. To be honest, i don't have much knowledge about Saudi and its problems with Iran at the moment. Maybe our Saudi friends will assist us in explaining the depth of this problem.
 
A wonderfully balanced article on shiet-Sunnite conflict by Ibrahim Kalin

expecting the comments of fellow forumers...

He is clearly lying about the Syrian government, for this reason alone this article belongs in the dustbin. What a joker.
 
Yes, i was gonna write an answer but had some things to do. The article articulates the realities of Middle East sectarian nature pretty good. As i wrote before, countries like Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia MUST have positive relations, because we are neighbors and if we want the geographical boundaries to remain identical the next couple of decades/centuries we need to develop a region of peace and cooperation - just like EU.

As the article denotes, the region was actually experiencing some positive developments right until Assad chose to answer very harshly towards his people's demands of democracy and rights. Syria had excellent relations with Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. As the article rightly underlines, religion did not play a big role in the conducts of its foreign relations. We can talk about the current scenario in pages and how we came to be like we are right now in ME, but that would be a waste of energy and time, we can individually do that. Therefor i think it will be much more beneficial to look at solutions - how can we solve the issues, grievances, injustices in Middle East?

Firstly Iranian politicians need to move closer to Ankara. The more they distance themselves from Turkey the worse the situation for both Iran and Syria will get. This is fact. Iran's last friend in the ME was Turkey. Turkey did not approve sanctions against Iran in UN and we always supported Iran in its stance to develop its Nuclear for peaceful purpose. Erdogan has countless of times called the West a hypocrit for closing her eyes to Israel's nuclear prowess while totally focusing on Iran and manipulating the international community. Notice how Obama tries to create his own world construction by excluding Iran from the so-called "international community". These are all games in politics and some countries who have more and better resources exploit and manipulate them to fulfill their own purpose.
Iran being almost totally isolated cannot articulate its own point of view the same way powerful countries like the US or EU does. Hence we are getting a very negative picture of Iran through these media. The reason Israel is totally left alone, or in fact supported by her Western friends is because of how the Israelis are excellent in exactly this game of politics. They are active and they know how to manipulate the West in making them believe that their goals are identical even though it definitely is not. The paradigm in the US belongs to the Jewish lobbies, and a shift in this paradigm is unspeakable, at least now it is.

1: Iran needs to get on the same page with Turkey. As the two most powerful countries in the ME we need to use our prowess for the greater good. Iran and Turkey should mutually fight the PKK which is a headache in the region. We also need to adress the problems in Syria and call for an end to Assad's brutality. Iran has nothing to lose, on the quite contrary many things to win with being friendly towards Turkey. We are adressing Iran's view in the international arena and as long as Turkey stays friend with Iran the likelihood of war decreases. I want to ask our Iranian members here: What can you possibly gain by supporting Syria, and what will it cost you?

2: Turkey needs to stand tougher against the West concerning Iran. We need to move towards the East since the future lies there. The West is slowly moving towards failure, this is clear as a crystal. I know the majority of our export goes to EU countries, but that does not mean our hands and legs are bound by them. We can and we should act by our own will and analyze what will benefit us in the longer run.

3: Saudi Arabia needs to develop friendly ties with Iran and the Shias' generally. As the article underlines, the sectarian conflict happens majorily between Shias and Sunnis. To be honest, i don't have much knowledge about Saudi and its problems with Iran at the moment. Maybe our Saudi friends will assist us in explaining the depth of this problem.


If you analyze the geopolitics before the Arab spring, the relationship of Turkey with its neighbor Iran,Iraq and Syria was excellent and grown to the strategic level. flashback 2009-2010 the whole spectrum of middle eastern geopolitics was shifting against Israel. in 2011 Arab spring took place when it reached Bahrain & Syria it changed permutation & combination of Middle Eastern politics and that has created a great rift between Shiet & Sunnite political leaders.

On the one side Iran openly backed Bahraini Shiet demonstrators against the rule of Sunnite Al-Khalifa , the other side it vehemently supported the fellow Nuseyri/ Shiet despotic regime of Al-Assad who ruled the majority Sunnite population with iron fist. These political moves has dramatically shifted the politics of Middle East and provided a sigh of relief to the regionally isolated Israel for another decade or so.
 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...ternecine-conflicts-pakistan.html#post3227664

To summarize the above-linked post:

In the dying days of the Ottoman/Usman Empire, what is now "Saudi" Arabia had three major powers operating more-or-less as vassals under the overall suzerainty of the Usmaniyya Khalifa in Istanbul:

(1) Kingdom of Hejaz on the West-coast (Red Sea),
(2) Kingdom of Najd (Central Desert), and,
(3) The Imamate of Al-Hasa on the East-Coast (Persian Gulf).

The House of Saud was the ruling family of the Central Desert Kingdom of Najd. Under the opportunistic deal reached between the House of Saud (plus Salafi Ulema) and the British Empire, the Kingdom of Najd agreed to support the British in their war against the crumbling Khilafah of the Usman Empire.

In return, the British Empire agreed to let the Saud-ruled Kingdom of Najd conquer and/or annex the Kingdom of Hejaz to the West and the Shia Imamate of Al-Hasa to the East.

To pacify the ruling personages ("Hashemite") of the Kingdom of Hejaz, the British carved up the territories of the Usman Empire into Iraq, Syria & Jordan and crowned the members of the Hashemite family as independent kings of these newly formed countries. So the first post-Usmaniyya kings of Syria, Iraq & Jordan were all related and came from the erstwhile-Kingdom of Hejaz under the British Scheme. Of course, Syria and Iraq had Ba'athist revolutions which got rid of their kings and created Republics, but (Trans)-Jordan still has its king and is therefore called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to this day.

This might just seem like typical stupid-politics of empires at first, but closer examination reveals that it has a horrendous religious significance. The British Empire may not have understood this religious significance at that time, but it still continues to haunt the Muslim World to this day.

Here is the religious significance:

(1) The Kingdom of Najd practiced an Isolationist Radical-reform Salafi/Wahabi form of Islam, with very weak ties to any other Islamic Seminaries of the various Schools in the outside (Non-central-Arabian-Desert) world.
(2) The Kingdom of Hejaz practiced a Cosmopolitan Traditionalist Sufi/Shriner form of Islam, with deep ties to the Barelvi-style Seminaries in British India.
(3) The Al-Hasa Imamate on the Persian Gulf coast, which is where 80% of "Saudi" oil lies, practiced a form of Shia Islam, with deep ties to the Seminaries in the State of Awadh in British India (and also to Seminaries in Persia).

Here is a map where you can see Najd (isolated central desert), Hejaz (cosmopolitan trading west-coast) and Al Hasa (cosmopolitan trading east-coast). Also note the location of Bahrain, which used to be affiliated to Al Hasa, thus explaining the Shia majority there today:

najdoccupied.jpg


One more map that shows the locations of major Saudi Arabian Oil & Gas reserves on the Eastern (Persian Gulf) Coast and the Demograhics in those eastern regions. Also of interest are the indicated central-desert strongholds of Salafism without much oil & gas:

MidEast_Religion_and_Oil_sm.jpg


The British-assisted conquest, subjugation and annexation by the Desert Kingdom of Najd of (i) the West-coast Kingdom of Hejaz and (ii) the east-coast Imamate of Al-Hasa immediately led to the destruction, persecution, suppression and wiping out of all Sufi/Traditionalist/Barelvi & Shia/Awadhi/Lakhnawi ideas and traditions in what is now "Saudi" Arabia. This manifested itself in the destruction of Mazars, Ibadatgahs, Dargahs, Shrines, Khanqahs and other holy places of great importance to the Traditionalists of various hues as well as to the Shia: Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a trivial point. This has worldwide religious significance. This was merely the first shot fired by Salafis of Najd in the ideological war against the rest of the Muslim world. Their aim is not merely to "cleanse" the Arabian Peninsula of they believe to be "Shirk", but to also "cleanse" the whole Muslim World of what they consider "Kufr, Shirk & Bidah".

The radical Salafis took over Makkah & Madinah and wiped out the Cosmopolitan Traditionalist/Sufi forms of Islam that existed in the Kingdom of Hejaz in Usmaniyya times. They just brushed aside the views of the religious ulema of the vast majority of Sunni Muslims all over the world who were following the same forms of Sufi/Traditional Islam seen in Makkah & Madinah at that time. Under their control, Makkah & Madinah have now been culturally changed beyond recognition. In the Usmaniyya period, many women in the Hejaz did not wear burkas and looked somewhat like the tribal women in India's Rajasthan today, and rare photos of those times are still on display in British Libraries & Museums. The radical-reform Salafis have since declared war on the Sufis/Traditionalists all over the world in the belief that since they now control Makkah & Madinah, theirs is the only True form of Islam.

The same violence and fanaticism was also seen against the Shias in the Eastern Imamate of Al Hasa. Public displays of Shia Islam are now seldom to be seen in Eastern "Saudi" Arabia, despite the fact that more than 75% of the population in those eastern coastal regions is Shia. The Salafis have since declared war against the Shia all over the world and will not stop until their True-form of Islam prevails over every other False-form.
...

This is not just a petty skirmish that will soon be forgotten. This is a well-thought out radical plan. The Salafis do not consider Shia/Sufi/Barelvi/Traditionalist etcetera as denominations of Islam. They consider them to be "other religions" and not a part of the Muslim Ummah. They fully intend to use the power of their State & its huge oil reserves to convert all the non-Salafis (read non-Muslim) into Salafis (read Muslim). They will not stop at anything. They will use force if they have to. They truly do not understand the meaning of the word "no".

Note that Iran has nothing to do with this anymore, except as a defensive party under ideological attack. So even if Iran were to be moved to some other planet, the sectarian violence in Pakistan would still continue because its true seeds lie in the Najd-Hejaz-Al Hasa conflict. Iran is merely a victim of history and no longer plays any real part in the inspiration or escalation of this violence, although it may occasionally fund "retaliatory" violence as a means of defending Shia rights worldwide. After all, the Shia Regime in Iran has no intention of converting the whole Muslim World to Shi'ism. Therefore, Iranian Shi'sm is no longer expanionist. The dangerous expansionist-ideology today comes from the Najdi-salafi system in Saudi Arabia, which most definitely, most fervently and most zealously wants to convert the whole Muslim World to Salafism.

It light of all this, it becomes clear that the stage has now been set for decades of conflict. Ground zero for these conflicts will be Islamic countries with weak Governments and in which there is a mix of denominations. Top examples are Iraq (65% Shia, 20% Traditionalist/Sufi, 10% Salafi, 5% Other) and Pakistan (60% Barelvi/Sufi, 16% Shia, 16% Deobandi, 5% Salafi, 3% Other). The bloodshed in these Salafi-inspired conflicts is going to horrendous for at least another generation, and maybe more.

Here is an interesting map that shows not just the Shia in Iraq, Pakistan, Deccan & Awadh, but also the Shia (Hidden, no public displays of Shi'ism is allowed) on the east-coast of Saudi Arabia who are left over from the Al-Hasa Imamates that I mentioned earlier: (Note that Zaidis have not been counted as Shia in this map)

Ethnic%20Map%20ME.jpg


.....

Post-Script Notes of Interest:

(1) This strong Anglo-Saud Anti-Khilafah alliance that was instrumental in the formation of "Saudi" Arabia is the reason why the House of Saud is so close to the Anglo-Saxon Powers even today (British first, then transferred to America after WW-II).
(2) This Anglo-Saud alliance against the Kingdom of Hejaz (Sharifs of Makkah) explains why Barelvi-Sufi Ulema in India sometimes refer to the Salafis as "Angrezon key Awlad" even today.
(3) The house of Saud, the Salafis and the Ikhwan rebelled against the recognized Khalifa of the Usmaniyya Empire saying that they did not recognize either his authority or his profession of Islam. They claimed that their form of Islam was the true one. This is why the Traditionalist-school Ulema from the Upper & lower Euphrates-Tigris regions sometimes refer to the Salafis as "Khawarij" even today.
(4) The Najdi-Salafis drove-away or killed the top Shia-Imams of the Imamate of Al Hasa after the take-over, saying that the Shia were "Rawafid". This, coupled with the destruction of Shrines in Makkah and Madinah is very close to the actions of the Khalifa Yazid-I in which he had Imam Hussain killed and waged wars against Makkan and Madinah. This historical parallel is why the Shia Imams (in Iran and elsewhere) sometimes refer to the Salafis as "Yazidi" even today.
(5) The Saudi-Salafi combine had tried to do a take-over ~200 years ago, but at that time the Usman Empire was strong enough to send troops to the Hejaz (Makkah-Madina) and throw the Saudi-Salafis back into their central desert home. So the take-over ~100 years ago was a "second-attempt" and was successful this time only because the Usman Empire was already collapsing and was under attack by the British & French Empires. This is why some Turkish history-buffs sometimes refer to the House of Saud as "Western-Agents" even today.
 
Very informative articles with graphics, though not 100% true, tilted towards shiet view in Alhasa etc, the people of larger bahrain were the first who collided and welcomed Sauds and in return they got riches in the form of cash and land. Barelvism is not even ecntury old phenomenon it is nothing but mix Islamic values with preIslamiclocal Hindu, Buddhist traditions. I hav ebeen to Indonesia where i found many local pre islamic tradition mixed with Islam and bing practised by vast majority of Indonesian.

Rāfiḍah (Arabic: رافضة‎ [rɑːfidˤa]; pl. rawāfiḍ) is a collective noun which means "defectors" or "deserters". The word is derived from the Arabic consonantal root ر ف ض, which as a verb means "to desert". The non-collective singular form is رافضي rāfiḍī "a deserter". This is an Islamic term which refers in a derogatory way to those who, in the opinion of the person using the term, reject legitimate Islamic authority and leadership. To those who the term is being directed towards, rafida is a pejorative appellation, a negative affect, and an abusive nickname.[1]

The term is used today by many Sunni Muslims to refer to Shi'i Muslims who do not recognize Abu Bakr and his successors as having been legitimate rulers (Rashidun) of the early Muslim community. The Shi'a, in turn, may refer to Sunnis as "Nasibis" or "Wahhabi".

The term rafida followed the Shi'a from a very early period, back to the uprising of Zayd ibn Ali against the Umayyad Caliphate. This uprising foreshadowed the collapse of the dynasty, which in turn led to the split between those Shi'i Muslims who agreed with Zayd and those who did not.[1] The meaning of the term went through several changes over time. It became a popular pejorative term for Twelvers, intended to recall their rejection of Zayd ibn Ali and of the first Sunni Rashidun, namely Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.
 
Very informative articles with graphics, though not 100% true, tilted towards shiet view in Alhasa etc, the people of larger bahrain were the first who collided and welcomed Sauds and in return they got riches in the form of cash and land. Barelvism is not even ecntury old phenomenon it is nothing but mix Islamic values with preIslamiclocal Hindu, Buddhist traditions.

......


1) This post was not mine. I merely copied it from another thread with some truncation. I have provided the link to the original post, so you can look up the original.

2) I agree with you that nothing is ever 100% true.

3) As for the Bahrain issue: Yes, you are correct that Bahrain sides with the Saudi. That is because a small Salafi ruling clan rules over the vast majority of ordinary Shia in Bahrain. It is this ruling safafi clan that colludes with the House of Saud. And this is reason that there is an uprising there-- the majority ordinary shias are rising up against the minority Salafi ruler. So yes, Bahrain is Salafi-ruled, but it is nonetheless a Shia-majority region, just like the "eastern province" of Saudia, because both of them are the descendents of Al Hasa.

4) Yes, it is true that the "Barelvi School" is not all that old. But when the School was founded is neither here nor there. What is called "Barelvi" Islam is much, much older than the school. This Islam is a "traditionalist" form of Sunni Islam and was common throughout the Sunni world. This is a cosmopolitan form of Islam-- In India, it will show Indian pre-islamic influence; In Turkey, it will show Turkish pre-islamic influence; In Syria, it will show Syrian pre-islamic influence and so on. This was a more syncretic and assimilative school of Islam that was still it predominant in the Hejaz Region (Makkah & Medinah) up to the 1920s. Of course, it has since been wiped out from there and replaced by Salafism.

In any case, if you wish to comment or discuss this issue further, I would recommend you go to the original thread and initiate a good discussion there....

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...ternecine-conflicts-pakistan.html#post3227664
 
1) This post was not mine. I merely copied it from another thread with some truncation. I have provided the link to the original post, so you can look up the original.

2) I agree with you that nothing is ever 100% true.

3) As for the Bahrain issue: Yes, you are correct that Bahrain sides with the Saudi. That is because a small Salafi ruling clan rules over the vast majority of ordinary Shia in Bahrain. It is this ruling safafi clan that colludes with the House of Saud. And this is reason that there is an uprising there-- the majority ordinary shias are rising up against the minority Salafi ruler. So yes, Bahrain is Salafi-ruled, but it is nonetheless a Shia-majority region, just like the "eastern province" of Saudia, because both of them are the descendents of Al Hasa.

4) Yes, it is true that the "Barelvi School" is not all that old. But when the School was founded is neither here nor there. What is called "Barelvi" Islam is much, much older than the school. This Islam is a "traditionalist" form of Sunni Islam and was common throughout the Sunni world. This is a cosmopolitan form of Islam-- In India, it will show Indian pre-islamic influence; In Turkey, it will show Turkish pre-islamic influence; In Syria, it will show Syrian pre-islamic influence and so on. This was a more syncretic and assimilative school of Islam that was still it predominant in the Hejaz Region (Makkah & Medinah) up to the 1920s. Of course, it has since been wiped out from there and replaced by Salafism.

In any case, if you wish to comment or discuss this issue further, I would recommend you go to the original thread and initiate a good discussion there....

http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...ternecine-conflicts-pakistan.html#post3227664

here is some text on wiki about Salafi movemnet.


Salafi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has always been different opinion and difference of opinion amongst Islamic theologists on the purity of Islamic rituals and assimilation of local preislamic or prevalent influence (sometimes refereed to culture) on that. There have been numerous movements in Islam since its advent and Salafism is one of them. The term wahabism to refer salfism is very latest addition well-liked by Khoeminst Iran to be used as an instrument to disparage Sunnite Islam in general and Arabs in particular.
If you carefully study the regional geopolitics then you will find that there is a natural process of reintegration is going on in the Middle East North Africa region. Popular uprising and the over through of decade old rulers will enable the people’s movement to decide the process of reintegration. Bahrain, Syria, Libya, Iraq and other countries of the region will are going through the same process. This is a long turbulent path and many people will lose their lives to finally achieve the process.
 
...... the people of larger bahrain were the first who collided and welcomed Sauds and in return they got riches in the form of cash and land.......

........As for the Bahrain issue: Yes, you are correct that Bahrain sides with the Saudi. That is because a small Salafi ruling clan rules over the vast majority of ordinary Shia in Bahrain. It is this ruling safafi clan that colludes with the House of Saud. And this is reason that there is an uprising there-- the majority ordinary shias are rising up against the minority Salafi ruler. So yes, Bahrain is Salafi-ruled, but it is nonetheless a Shia-majority region, just like the "eastern province" of Saudia, because both of them are the descendents of Al Hasa............


Saudi Shiite Cleric Nimr Al-Nimr: We Should Rejoice in the Death of Crown Prince Nayyef - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-OSh5Hnvw
 
This is a part of the great game in West Asia, the outcome of Shiet - Sunnite conflict will settle the regional upheaval .
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom