What's new

Why Bangladesh should support Sunni Arab and oppose Iran led Shia extremism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I ask you one thing, is it ok for Muslim to accept zulum and stay silent? We cannot help all the situations because we do not have sufficient power to affect the outcome, but this Syrian conflict, I believe we have sufficient man power to affect the outcome and tip the balance. If we can save one Muslim life by bringing the conflict to an end sooner, then our entire nation will earn that sawab, not to mention the gratitude of 400 million Arab people. Many of them are divided and do not have the means to go and fight due to lack of logistics and due to hostile ruling govt. But I believe we are in a position to make a difference.

Why are you so unwilling to help our Arab Sunni brothers in their time of need? Is it because you had Shia ancestors and still feel some vestige of loyalty towards them? I mention it because you posted this info yourself making it public. My apologies in advance if I hurt your feeling. In any case, I thank Allah (SWT) that your family have converted to Sunni faith.

I oppose your position not out of any alligence to Shia doctrine as I am not Shia although a few generation ago my family were, but rather because there is no calculable benefit in BD getting into this mess. swab is not enough. This really is a regional problem best left to the people in the area. We as a nation are not rich enough to meddle and interfere internationally. Dude we do not even produce much of our own weapons, how can we possibly support such adventure? Are we to spend our hard earned foreign currency to buy weapons from the Chinese to supply Syria? Come on dude the Chinese have vested interest and have threatened to veto resolutions on behalf of Syria. India is also one of the biggest oil customer of Iran. By intervening we place our own strategic interest at risk. Should we really risk damaging relation with syrian ally russia who is transfering tech and building our reactors, or china or india? Every international action has to weighed up from a perspective of cost and benifit. I see a whole lot of cost and not a lot of benefit. Islamic Ummah I do believe in but not national suicide.
 
.
Bangladesh received financial help from Arab Sunni brother countries, in the form of grants and employment based remittance of millions of migrant workers, while we have no such relationship with the only Shia majority country Iran. So it is only fitting that we return the favor of siding with them, even without considering Sunni unity.

So you are essentially saying your foreign policy should be for sale?

There are more Indians in the GCC than there are Bangladeshis, yet India has balanced relations with both Arabs and Iranians. Something for you to ponder...
 
. .
None of them are from Bangladesh......Their opinions are not worth much in this matter!

Expect a lot of Arab chest thumping followed by a lot of Iranian chest thumping. Anyhow I am glad as this will show up just how removed BD is from this and why we should maintain the said distance.
 
.
Almost all the Bengalis commenting here live abroad. Best the people who actually live there decide what they want as they will be the ones bearing any repercussions.
 
.
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Sunni-Shia conflict is another phrase for Muslim-Muslim conflict
 
.
Bangladesh should not take side i oppose that instead a good relation will benefit all and also help each other
 
.
I guess some people still don't see what's happening in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan.

They want Bangladesh to get involved in this idiotic conflict and become like those countries.

The best thing would be for Bangladesh to tell both Iran and Saudi Arabia to keep their extremism to themselves, no thank you.

I do not believe your 15% Shia population will be able to prevent it if Pakistani Sunni's eventually get involved in this conflict, with a sympathetic Nawaz govt. and a sympathetic Armed forces, so I would worry about that rather than what Bangladesh would do.
 
.
I oppose your position not out of any alligence to Shia doctrine as I am not Shia although a few generation ago my family were, but rather because there is no calculable benefit in BD getting into this mess. swab is not enough. This really is a regional problem best left to the people in the area. We as a nation are not rich enough to meddle and interfere internationally. Dude we do not even produce much of our own weapons, how can we possibly support such adventure? Are we to spend our hard earned foreign currency to buy weapons from the Chinese to supply Syria? Come on dude the Chinese have vested interest and have threatened to veto resolutions on behalf of Syria. India is also one of the biggest oil customer of Iran. By intervening we place our own strategic interest at risk. Should we really risk damaging relation with syrian ally russia who is transfering tech and building our reactors, or china or india? Every international action has to weighed up from a perspective of cost and benifit. I see a whole lot of cost and not a lot of benefit. Islamic Ummah I do believe in but not national suicide.

Money is not an issue here, Gulf nations I am sure will bear the expense.

Chinese have their own strategy to keep good relations with Arabs, they have been paying lip service to Russian interest in this conflict. There is not much Chinese interest at stake in Syria. And Russians sell arms for money, its not like we are going to use our fighter planes in Syria. If they get upset, we can always buy our weapons from China.

India is also a big oil customer of KSA, just as it is of Iran.

Lets do the cost benefit analysis, I am not against it. In every venture, there is risk involved, just like there is potential benefit, so we need to think before we leap. As far as I can see, the benefit is higher than the cost, otherwise I would not create a thread for this idea.

It is not national suicide by any stretch of imagination, rather only cowards and confused end up finishing last in every race, and remain friendless, destitute and poor, and have the dubious distinction of being known as the vassal state of another equally stupid and dirt poor larger neighbor.
 
.
So you are essentially saying your foreign policy should be for sale?

There are more Indians in the GCC than there are Bangladeshis, yet India has balanced relations with both Arabs and Iranians. Something for you to ponder...

No, it is not for sale. It is called returning favor to a friend in need, who has helped before and is helping us as we speak today.

And India is not a majority Muslim country, not only that, India is allied with Shia Iran and does not want to see Sunni get more united and powerful.

Bangladesh should not take side i oppose that instead a good relation will benefit all and also help each other

You have been singing for Shia Iran and Alawites in Syrian threads, why are you promoting good relation with all here in this thread, is it ok to ask?
 
.
Bangladesh should roll on its own .

No point having a sugar daddy in form of Arabs or Iranians or anyone .

Good Relations , definitely .

Sugar daddy relationships , definitely no .


But again an Intelligent person is the one who leans from the mistake of others ( E.g. Pakistan , Syria , Lebanon et all ) .

India rolls with both Arabs and Iranians , And also with both Russia and U.S. Its because evil yindoo baniya chanakiya minded people realize interests of country comes before anything ( like ummah ) . But again its just us .

No, it is not for sale. It is called returning favor to a friend in need, who has helped before and is helping us as we speak today.

And India is not a majority Muslim country, not only that, India is allied with Shia Iran and does not want to see Sunni get more united and powerful.



You have been singing for Shia Iran and Alawites in Syrian threads, why are you promoting good relation with all here in this thread, is it ok to ask?


Pray tell this Banya oh Momin , How India is allied to Iran or for that matter Arabs ??
 
.
No, it is not for sale. It is called returning favor to a friend in need, who has helped before and is helping us as we speak today.

And India is not a majority Muslim country, not only that, India is allied with Shia Iran and does not want to see Sunni get more united and powerful.



You have been singing for Shia Iran and Alawites in Syrian threads, why are you promoting good relation with all here in this thread, is it ok to ask?

i dont know if you know i liked Gaddafi
yes i like Iran Libya Lebanon Pakistan Palestine Yassair Arafat etc.. India ( i dont like everything there)
i dont like Saudi gov Qatari gov but the people in there is good as far as i know
I love Muslim Bother hood in Egypt but i didnot like Morsi
i am not supporting Shia Sunnis in here
Sunnis Shitties people like you make the different problem

Bangladesh is a Islamic Country
India has relation with Iran and Saudi and Qatar a good relation
India dont need to scare of Sunni or Shitte
 
.
I do not believe your 15% Shia population will be able to prevent it if Pakistani Sunni's eventually get involved in this conflict, with a sympathetic Nawaz govt. and a sympathetic Armed forces, so I would worry about that rather than what Bangladesh would do.

I guess I didn't make myself clear.

Pakistan is suffering precisely because the elements you mentioned have decided to kill fellow Pakistanis to please their foreign benefactors.

If you want Bangladesh to follow the same path, then may Allah help Bangladesh.

No, it is not for sale. It is called returning favor to a friend in need, who has helped before and is helping us as we speak today.

If "returning favor" to foreign governments means denying rights to your fellow citizens, you have a very strange view of the world. Have you so little faith in the worth of Bangladeshi migrants that you feel you need to offer these "favors" to the Arabs in return?

India doesn't need to do such "favors", yet they have far more migrants in GCC than you do.
Nor do the East Asian countries prostrate themselves as you are suggesting.

Remember this: once you set the precedent to sell your soul, everyone else will demand the same payment.

And India is not a majority Muslim country, not only that, India is allied with Shia Iran and does not want to see Sunni get more united and powerful.

Over 25% (some say 40%) of UAE population is Indian. They have good relations with both Arabs and Iranians.

I don't know in what world you see India as being allied with Iran.
 
.
Pakistan’s Transition from Shia to Sunni Leadership | Far Outliers

Pakistan’s Transition from Shia to Sunni Leadership
From: The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future, by Vali Nasr (W. W. Norton, 2006), pp. 88-90:

Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was an Ismaili by birth and a Twelver Shia by confession, though not a religiously observant man. He had studied at the Inns of Court in London and was better versed in English law than in Shia jurisprudence, was never seen at an Ashoura procession, and favored a wardrobe that often smacked as much of Savile Row as of South Asia. Yet insofar as he was Muslim and a spokesman for Muslim nationalism, it was as a Shia. His coreligionists played an important role in his movement, and over the years many of Pakistan’s leaders were Shias, including one the country’s first governor-generals, three of its first prime ministers, two of its military leaders (Generals Iskandar Mirza and Yahya Khan), and many other of its leading public officials, landowners, industrialists, artists, and intellectuals. Two later prime ministers, the ill-fated Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his Radcliffe-educated, currently exiled daughter, Benazir Bhutto, were also Shia. Feeling the wind shift in the 1990s, Benazir styled herself a Sunni, but her Iranian mother, her husband from a big Shia landowning family, and her father’s name, the name of Ali’s twin-bladed sword, make her Shia roots quite visible. In a way, Benazir’s self-reinvention as a Sunni tells the tale of how secular nationalism’s once solid-seeming promise has given way like a rotten plank beneath the feet of contemporary Pakistan’s beleaguered Shia minority.

Benazir’s father came from a family of large Shia landowners who could afford to send him for schooling to the University of California at Berkeley and to Oxford. He cut a dashing figure. Ambitious, intelligent, and secular, he was a brilliant speaker, with the ability, it is said, to make a crowd of a million people dance and then cry. His oratory manipulated public emotion as the best of Shia preachers could, and his call for social justice resonated with Shia values. His party’s flag conveniently displayed the colors of Shiism: black, red, and green. Although he never openly flaunted his Shia background, he commanded the loyalty of Pakistan’s Shia multitudes, around a fifth of the population. What he lacked in the area of regular religious observance he made up for with his zeal for Sufi saints and shrines, especially that of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, the widely popular Sufi saint of Shia extraction whose tomb is a major shrine in southern Pakistan.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s years in power (1971–77) marked the pinnacle of Shia power in Pakistan and the high point of the promise of an inclusive Muslim nationalism. But the country that Jinnah built and Bhutto ruled had over time become increasingly Sunni in its self-perception. The Sunni identity that was sweeping Pakistan was not of the irenic Sufi kind, moreover, but of a strident and intolerant brand. Bhutto’s Shia-supported mix of secularism and populism—sullied by corruption and his ruthless authoritarianism—fell to a military coup led by pious Sunni generals under the influence of hard-eyed Sunni fundamentalists. In April 1979, the state hanged Bhutto on questionable murder charges. A Sunni general, Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, strongly backed by Sunni fundamentalist parties, personally ordered that the death sentence be carried out, even after Pakistan’s highest court recommended commutation to life imprisonment.

The coup of 1977 ended the Pakistani experiment with inclusive Muslim nationalism. Shia politicians, generals, and business leaders remained on the scene, but a steadily “Islamizing” (read “Sunnifying”) Pakistan came to look more and more like the Arab world, with Sunnis on top and Shias gradually pushed out. Pakistan in many regards captures the essence of the political challenge that the Shia have faced. The promise of the modern state has eluded them as secular nationalism has been colonized from within by Sunni hegemony.



You are welcome to express your personal opinion, as I do my own. You do not speak for Bangladesh, nor do I.

Zia took some incredibly disastrous decisions but the fact is the Shia/ Sunni strife started in Pakistan after Islamic revolution in Iran. Most people mix that up with Afghan Jehad but that is not the case, Afghan Jehad acted as a catalyst on a phenomenon which was already existing.

Both Bhutto and BB were fiercely nationalistic and the idea that they promoted Shiaism (or were pro-Iran due to being Shi'ites) is preposterous. Bhutto is on record suggesting that it was Russia which engineered the fall of Shah and the negative influence it will have on Pakistan. Even Zia used religion just as a tool for furthering his political aims.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom