The Awakening Sunni Giant (Recomended)

[iranigirl2]

@FaujHistorian

Shia have been severely prosecuted for 1400 years. This is not a debated issue, it's a fact that Islamic and Middle eastern historians regularly confirm.


To read more about Shias SEVERE prosecution read these.

http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-shiites-of-saudi-arabia

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-syria-alawites-sect-idUSTRE8110Q720120202



Iran throughout history was never majority Sunni or Shia population. For most of our history we were ruled by Sunni Arabs or Turks, but the population was very diverse.

There were patchwork of many different sects of Shia (ismaili, 12er, 7ever,Alevis,Alawites) and many different schools of Sunni, including center of Sufism.

Plus your talking about prosecution of different sects in the 1500's . That's 500 years ago.

I'm talking about Shia prosecution in 1900's and still occurring today in many Arab countries in the Persian Gulf.



.

 

[anonymus]

Every religion was spread by force of authority, whether it was direct force or imperial decree. This applies to all the major religions of the world, East and West.

Therefore, it is meaningless to indulge in debates about degrees of force used.

Except when the religion being displace was animism.

There are examples to contrary like spread of Buddhism in Tibet.

Only when a Religion displaces an established Religion with it's assorted clergy, force is required.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Every religion was spread by force of authority, whether it was direct force or imperial decree. ....

Again my dear you are mixing up history.

Early Muslims in Medina were not forced to convert to Islam, and there definitely was no imperial force back then.

Same way, Makkah was not conquered by Mohammad pbuh using force, nor the local Arabs were converted by force.

If you read my post carefully, you will see what I said about Sunni Islam.

......
The Shia-Sunni rivalry has always been on the back burner, like divisions in all communities. ..

Shia-Sunni conflict was on the very front burner from the day Mohammad pbuh passed away.

When Shian-e-Ali disagreed with supporters of Abu bakr.

Then moved forward to Jang-e-Jamal.

then moved forward to Karbala and assassination of Hussain.


then moved forward to Fatmis.

then moved forward to Safavis.



If you call these events "back burner",

then my dear you are talking about a very fat back, and even bigger fatter @rse.


Pakistani Shias and Sunnis have tendency to sweep this thorny issue under the rug, but in the Middle East,

this Shia-Sunni $hit has been going on for 1400 years.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian

1. Shia have been severely prosecuted for 1400 years.

2. Plus your talking about prosecution [of Sunnis by Shias] of different sects in the 1500's . That's 500 years ago.

3. I'm talking about Shia prosecution in 1900's and still occurring today in many Arab countries in the Gulf.



.

My dear Girl aka Iranian Girl,

You are either naive or very young or worse a very naive and very young both.


Sorry to make this comment.

But your arguments are childish and self-contradictory.


Just read your post's bullet 1 vs. 3.

and 1 vs. 2.

I suggest you take a course in logic 101.


Thank you

 

[Developereo]

Again my dear you are mixing up history.

No, I am schooling you in wider world history that every -- that's EVERY, as in every single one -- major religion spread by force of authority. The 'force' is not always overt, as in a sword. There are a million different ways of influencing people's behavior: from peer pressure, to social exclusion, to economic factors, etc. etc, etc.

People tend to follow the leader's ideology, whether the leader happens to be emperor, king, military commander or tribal leader.

Pakistani Shias and Sunnis have tendency to sweep this thorny issue under the rug, but in the Middle East,

Every issue was a front page issue at one point or another. Shia-Sunni division was a major issue when it happened.

Over time, it was relegated to the back burner, and resurrected periodically by leaders for their own purposes. Ordinary people do not obsess about these things unless someone tells them it is the most important thing in the world.

The current resurrection is just the latest occurrence by opportunists.

 

[iranigirl2]

My dear Girl aka Iranian Girl,

You are either naive or very young or worse a very naive and very young both.


Sorry to make this comment.

But your arguments are childish and self-contradictory.


Just read your post's bullet 1 vs. 3.

and 1 vs. 2.

I suggest you take a course in logic 101.


Thank you

My dear Friend,

my comment are logical and based on facts. My comments narrate the history of the region.

Shias been severely prosecuted from 1400 years ago to THIS DAY.

I'm sure not all Shias have been innocent throughout our history, but for the most part we've been a prosecuted minority.

Obviously, your version of history in the region is very distorted.

Anyone reading these comments can research these facts and they will easily conclude that Minorities have been prosecuted within the Sunni Islamic world, and the prosecution continues to this day. Not much has changed. When people get killed in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan only because they belong to a different sect, how can you try to hide and distort this fact? If you really believed in God and his teachings you won't try to deny this. This is shameful that there are extremist people like you that try to deny what's happening. Denial will not help anyone Shias and Sunnis alike.

 

[Wholegrain]

Iran does help Azerbaijan, especially the displaced ones from the war. And many Azerbaijanis study in Iran.There will always be strong Shia ties , because Shias have always been prosecuted and this has resulted in Shias across the region and globe to form tight communities. You will always see prosecuted communities sticking together. This is why many Shias support Assad, because Shias in Syria were slaughtered under Sunni rule and were oppressed greatly. This resulted them to withdraw from the society and hide in the secluded mountains. Samething in Lebanon, where the majority Sect Shias were excluded from the government and were oppressed. Same thing in Iraq and Bahrain. Also in Shias in Saudi Arabia were conquered in the early 1900's and their land exploited, they were a different tribe and country, no one asked them if they wanted to part of a new Wahhabi controlled kingdom. So , it's obvious prosecuted people will always stick together.

You can also look at Jewish people, they were always prosecuted as well, this is why they stick together.


Honestly, the only way to cut down the Iranian influence and break the Shia ties is to introduce reforms and treat Shias as equals in Arab countries, but that is highly UNLIKELY, because Sunni extremists have very prejudices views. If there was a moderate in Saudi Arabia , we could definitely work with them to reduce the tensions. There's been many times in the past where Iran and Saudi Arabia cooperated together and everyone in the region has benefitted from this cooperation. But right now there is a violent rise of Al Qaeda and Sunni extremism , So the future for moderation is bleak.

The other option is for all countries with sizeable Shia population to break up so the Shias can govern themselves. But this will cause years of wars and bloodshed.




To read more about Shias SEVERE prosecution read these.

Source:The Shiites of Saudi Arabia » Current Trends in Islamist Ideology

Source:Syria's Alawites, a secretive and persecuted sect | Reuters

Iran is allied to Armenia and Russia. Why doesn't Iran liberate Dagestan from Russia? Was it not part of Iran before the Russo Persian wars, and are there not still Iranian Tat speakers there?

 

[FaujHistorian]

N....
Every issue was a front page issue at one point or another. Shia-Sunni division was a major issue when it happened.

....

Unfortunately Shia-Sunni $hit keeps on happening, because we refuse to accept this as a serious issue.

your posts are the prime example of this lack of seriousness.

......
Over time, it was relegated to the back burner, and resurrected periodically by leaders for their own purposes. Ordinary people do not obsess about these things unless someone tells them it is the most important thing in the world..

If Ali can Aysha can go to a pathetic war, then what can we expect from others that followed them.

Ordinary people may or may not obsess with Shia-Sunni $hit.

Perhaps it is true.

But it really depends on where the $hit is being dropped.

Poor Shias of Kurram agency are mostly "ordinary people" But they have to be obsessed in protecting their lives.

on the other hand Hizbullah of iran has plenty of blind followers willing to suicide bomb, even when they are "ordinary people" on their street and mohallah.


peace

 

[Developereo]

@FaujHistorian

I really don't understand your goals here.

You say that Shia-Sunni rivalry is dividing Muslims and causing sectarian strife, to which I agree.
But then you go ahead and promote ancient events as justification for the rivalry.
Whatever happened thousand years ago is over; most people are over it.
There's no need to keep rehashing it.

P.S. There are ideological divisions in all religions. To say that people should have a "live and let live" attitude is not "denying the seriousness". To point out that opportunistic leaders are exploiting divisions which ordinary people normally wouldn't care about is not "denying the seriousness".

It is people like YOU who keep promoting this ancient divide.
Your posts here are a prime example.

 

[anonymus]

Again my dear you are mixing up history.

Early Muslims in Medina were not forced to convert to Islam, and there definitely was no imperial force back then.

Same way, Makkah was not conquered by Mohammad pbuh using force, nor the local Arabs were converted by force.

If you read my post carefully, you will see what I said about Sunni Islam.

Ridda Wars.

 

[FaujHistorian]

.....
I'm sure not all Shias have been innocent throughout our history, but for the most part we've been a prosecuted minority. ...

That's the point I am trying to make my dear.

Where Shias are minority, they are persecuted by non-Shia mjaority

Where Shias had the power, the forked Sunnis double time.

Recent example of Hafiz Assad (father of the current Assad the butcher), even when he was Shia minority guy, but he forked the Sunnis in Syria by the 1000s.

So please quit cherry picking stuff.

Just because Hussain was assassinated by Yazeed.

Doesn't mean Shia power elite has not been equally (if not more) ruthless.


peace

Ridda Wars.

Those wars happened after the death of Mohammad.


And they were less of religious wars and more of Talib@n types who started uprising against the state.


Hope you see the difference.


Thank you

 

[muse]

T
Recent example of Hafiz Assad (father of the current Assad the butcher), even when he was Shia minority guy, but he forked the Sunnis in Syria by the 1000s.

peace

Thank you

Be fair - Assad acted against the Brotherhood as a political force

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian

I really don't understand your goals here.

.....

It is people like YOU who keep promoting this ancient divide.
Your posts here are a prime example.

yaara developereo,


The most recent example of digging up Shia-Sunni $hit is the Bud-rooh-ullah Khomeni sahib.

It is totally unfair that you ignore bur-rooh-ullah Khomenis' huge @rse crimes

and start blaming historians who simply point out what happened.

Today if I write history of WW2. it will be $tupid for anyone to blame me for Hitler's rise, or jewish holocaust.


Please fix the blame where blame is due.

And don't shoot the historian whose only objective is to keep reminding the people, about the past mistakes or experiences.


Thank you

 

[FaujHistorian]

Be fair - Assad acted against the Brotherhood as a political force

Thanks for pointing out this out.

OK. in feb 1982,


(a) Assad the Sr. butcher killed few hundred MB militants.

However at the same time


(b) Assad the Sr. butcher killed 10,000 to 20,000 Syrian civilians .




I was talking about (b) as a huge massacre.

However if you want to limit the discussion on (a) only, we can do that too.


peace

 

[anonymus]

Those wars happened after the death of Mohammad.


And they were less of religious wars and more of Talib@n types who started uprising against the state.


Hope you see the difference.


Thank you

I quoted a relatively neutral conflict so as not to make it into a anti muslim tirade

But tell me What was the nature of raids that Muhammad organized on Meccan carvans or the harassment of Tribes until they submitted to his authority, if it was not spreading religion by force.

And no the excuse of defensive warfare would not cut as he was left in peace barring some jibes and harrasment which anyone claiming to be a prophet would have to undergo until he developed political ambitions.