Shia hero not needed in a Sunni play - Good analysis of Irani schemes

[Ayush]

A brilliant article you posted @FaujHistorian.

 

[KS]

The fact that pre-dawn prayers in Tehran were held 90 minutes before the break of dawn in Islamabad did not dissuade many from cutting short their sleep.

How is this possible ?

Shouldnt dawn break before in Islamabad than in Tehran given Isloo is east to Iran ?

 

[KS]

@nick_indian, you say you know nothing about Shia Islam, and I appreciate this honesty.

Now coming back to the topic of "Shia extremists".

Just ask the Israeli friends on this forum. They will give you all the details you want about Hizbi Hisbullahs and other terror organizations funded by Iran.


peace

@nick_indian was referring to Shias from the perspective of India. And I share his opinion. If you pick out a random sunni and then a random shia in India and compare them, the Shia is more likely to be educated, liberal and accomodative than the Sunni.

Also one thing that Indians like about Shias or Iranians is their respect to their pre-Islamic heritage.

 

[RazorMC]

[MENTION=33897]...
Also one thing that Indians like about Shias or Iranians is their respect to their pre-Islamic heritage.

That's not necessary for all Shias, it mostly holds true for Iranians and their recently discovered love for pre-Islamic Iran (Persia). And it's not about respect, it's more about the automatic assumption that any attack on Iranian/Perisan culture is a US-backed Zionist conspiracy.

 

[Areesh]

@
FaujiHistorian

Totally agreed with the article and I think for the first time I agree with you too.

@nick_indian was referring to Shias from the perspective of India. And I share his opinion. If you pick out a random sunni and then a random shia in India and compare them, the Shia is more likely to be educated, liberal and accomodative than the Sunni.

Also one thing that Indians like about Shias or Iranians is their respect to their pre-Islamic heritage.

Or in other words a sunni is more probable to raise voice and protest against the demolition of Babri Mosque than a shia. Hence you find them more "educated, liberal and accomodative". Just saying.

 

[explorer9]

That's not necessary for all Shias, it mostly holds true for Iranians and their recently discovered love for pre-Islamic Iran (Persia). And it's not about respect, it's more about the automatic assumption that any attack on Iranian/Perisan culture is a US-backed Zionist conspiracy.

The foundation of present day Iranian, religo-socio-cultural fabric was woven by the 16th century Safavid empire, who successfully converted the predominantly Sunnite realm in to Ithna Ashari Shiet. The intermixing of preislamic customs stemmed with Shiet religious practices envisaged a new social order that we visualize nowadays. So the Persian’s love to Preislamic civilization is not the new phenomenon and it is a 500 years old phenomenon

 

[Armstrong]

@faujiHistorian : A wonderful article but the 'Us vs Them' schism that was created in Pakistan ever since these two competing ideologies were allowed to be exported to Pakistan, it never went away ! I found it out the first time when I was sitting with some Baltis that I used to play football with & I, as an ethnic Kashmiri, was assumed by some of the Punjabis over there as being from the same region because of similar looks & complexion, and I was given an insight into what the difference between a Momin & a Sunni is & how without Zardari (a Shia) the Shias wouldn't even be able to step outside the confines of their homes. I know for a fact that I've heard Sunnis in my extended family giving similar BS their own spin & talking about who, in their opinion, is a Momin & who isn't !

Why..oh why did we allow our social fabric to be torn so easily ? And No I don't blame Zia ul Haq because there has to be a limit to what one Man could be held responsible for these things; we embraced this sectarianism, as a society, quite willingly ! Why ? What happened to the Muslim first, second & last, in '47, bit ?

 

[muse]

[MENTION=10967]Why..oh why did we allow our social fabric to be torn so easily ? And No I don't blame Zia ul Haq because there has to be a limit to what one Man could be held responsible for these things; we embraced this sectarianism, as a society, quite willingly ! Why ? What happened to the Muslim first, second & last, in '47, bit ?

Because we are an ignorant and cowardly peoples - we are ignorant about what Islam is, and we do not have the courage to be Muslims - See, you can't be a Muslim, without understanding and incorporating ethics and morality in to your character - It's your character that makes society, not the other way around, the other way around is for Totalitarians, and to be fair, we like it this way, because we think that we have no power to create the kinds of lives we think we should have, so we express power on those who we think will not be able to respond in kind, that's why we are so serious about killing peoples from other sects.

It's all too late to lament, now is time for killing - it will come to everyone and everyone has to have blood on their hands. Partition was just geography, now we have a chance to decide character, and when ever that has become a public issue, it's never been a quick or bloodless process.

 

[KS]

Or in other words a sunni is more probable to raise voice and protest against the demolition of Babri Mosque than a shia. Hence you find them more "educated, liberal and accomodative". Just saying.

It doesnt matter how you interpret my words. Its an open ended statement. Take what you will of that.

That's not necessary for all Shias, it mostly holds true for Iranians and their recently discovered love for pre-Islamic Iran (Persia). And it's not about respect, it's more about the automatic assumption that any attack on Iranian/Perisan culture is a US-backed Zionist conspiracy.

Relative to Sunnis, it holds true to Shias in India too.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@nick_indian was referring to Shias from the perspective of India. And I share his opinion. If you pick out a random sunni and then a random shia in India and compare them, the Shia is more likely to be educated, liberal and accomodative than the Sunni.

Also one thing that Indians like about Shias or Iranians is their respect to their pre-Islamic heritage.

Well then Nick_Indian should have clarified this.

Because this thread is about Pakistani Shias, and the OP was written by a Shia.


Oh and FYI, Indian and Pakistani Shias do not respect their "Pre-Islamic" heritage in general.

So this one is another false assumption.


Iranians on the other hand do have this Pehlavi and Darius link, but then it is for discussion on a tea cup only.

The reality is that so many dictators have been able to rape Iran during last centuries, that one wonders where is this pre-Islamic pride, that would have enabled Iranians to break the chains of slavery of Mullahs, Ayatullahs, commies and Shah.


peace

 

[KS]

Oh and FYI, Indian and Pakistani Shias do not respect their "Pre-Islamic" heritage in general.

So this one is another false assumption.

I am not knowledgeable of the Pakistani shias, but relative to Indian sunnis, I can say Indian shias are more open to their pre-islamic heritage.

I dont know why - and honestly it can also be because most of the muslim rulers were themselves sunni and hence shias might not have a big attachment to them as compared to sunnis.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the Cold War, and the rise of Soviet expansion into Muslim Republics followed by the terrorist infiltration and takeover of Makkah (during the '79 siege) and the Iranian Revolution were among many ongoing events of 20th century that would reak havoc on Pakistan....major spillover effects in a society in which nefarious elements within and outside try to create artificial divisions between people who are otherwise very patriotic and proud Pakistanis

the West and those mysterious behind the scenes figureheads of the New World Order are LOATH to see a united Muslim world

(i.e. one in which the 2 largest and most influential Islamic States unite and set aside their immature, man-made differences and hunger for power via religious sectarian influence)

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I am not knowledgeable of the Pakistani shias, but relative to Indian sunnis, I can say Indian shias are more open to their pre-islamic heritage.

I dont know why - and honestly it can also be because most of the muslim rulers were themselves sunni and hence shias might not have a big attachment to them as compared to sunnis.

Pakistani Sunnis and Shiias alike were critical for the formation of the Pakistani State; therefore what indian Muslims (regardless of sect or affiliation) opine about heritage and what not is of no concern to us. Of course they are welcome to our Mosques and welcome to the country anytime if they hope to learn more about it (as long as they aren't 'compromised' of course )

 

[FaujHistorian]

Pakistani Sunnis and Shiias alike were critical for the formation of the Pakistani State; therefore what indian Muslims (regardless of sect or affiliation) opine about heritage and what not is of no concern to us. Of course they are welcome to our Mosques and welcome to the country anytime if they hope to learn more about it (as long as they aren't 'compromised' of course )

Even though I agree with the overall gist of your post.


But still one important thing should be mentioned here if you must analyze things from religious and sectarian perspective. Mind you that fundamentals of Pakistani movement were economic and not religious.

For the pro-Pakistani movement, Shias and Ahmadis were MUCH much bigger contributers as a percentage of their population, compared to the Sunnis.

both Ahmadis and Shias contributed with the intellectual thought process and money and time.

Whereas Religiously inclined Sunnis were typically against Pakistan and Jinnah. All big name Sunni Mullahs were in fact siding with Congress of India and they all had declared Jinnah (A khoja Shia) as Kafir.


It is truly sad that us the majority sect Pakistanis turned our Qibla after 1947 and made the lives hell for all those who were much more patriotic than Sunnis ever were.


peace

ps. Do not want to start a religious/sectarian war around 1947. As I said earlier that fundamentals of Pakistani movement were economic and not religious.

 

[KingMamba]

I like Shia muslims , they tend to be peaceful . I don't know anything about Shia Islam to be honest. But i am sure there must be something good about their religion that you generally find very few extremists among them.Feel free to disagree , but this is just my opinion.

Why do some Pakistanis seem a little uncomfortable with what i said ?

So do you support Hezbollah against Israel then??

Even though I agree with the overall gist of your post.


But still one important thing should be mentioned here if you must analyze things from religious and sectarian perspective. Mind you that fundamentals of Pakistani movement were economic and not religious.

For the pro-Pakistani movement, Shias and Ahmadis were MUCH much bigger contributers as a percentage of their population, compared to the Sunnis.

both Ahmadis and Shias contributed with the intellectual thought process and money and time.

Whereas Religiously inclined Sunnis were typically against Pakistan and Jinnah. All big name Sunni Mullahs were in fact siding with Congress of India and they all had declared Jinnah (A khoja Shia) as Kafir.


It is truly sad that us the majority sect Pakistanis turned our Qibla after 1947 and made the lives hell for all those who were much more patriotic than Sunnis ever were.


peace

ps. Do not want to start a religious/sectarian war around 1947. As I said earlier that fundamentals of Pakistani movement were economic and not religious.

I agree with you for the most part but I would like to add that Pakistani sunnis should not be tossed all the blame for the mess of Pakistan. Despite being a minority Shias have effectively run Pakistan since its inception with the exception being Zia ul Haq. If the leaders of Pakistan meant to unite the two sects they were in a position of power to do so.