Even if Pavlov, Freud and Piaget meet to study this Omid case, they won't reach anything
Omid Sharifi ‘Dana’ (he dislikes his actual Arab last name ‘Sharifi’ as he hates anything related to Arabs and the Arab language) is an infamous Shia-born convert to Zoroast…
ebnhussein.com
True, but I'd advise caution about that article and the obviously sectarianist website it's published at, brother.
Although Dana's rants are inane no doubt, this particular paper is misleading in several ways. Starting with the title: "A sinister alliance between Iranian supremacy and Shiism". Shiaism like every other branch of Islam rejects racial supremacism.
The article is actually endorsing the pretense formulated by some ultra-nationalist Iranians that Shia Islam represents a subversive distortion of authentic Islam. In fact, this is a claim those ultra-nationalist Iranians in question (and it's not a particularly prominent theme among them), and anti-Shia sectarianists are in agreement about. They are united in their joint conviction that Shiaism is but a deviation meant to uproot Islam. Which of course is nonsensical to any believer in Shia Islam, and also to our mainstream Sunni brothers in Islam.
Moreover the author is exaggerating the relevance of this narrative among secular Iranian nationalists. Case in point, Dana for most of his time as a political activist has been taking aim at Shia Islam, its revered figures, its tenets, and its followers. He had been engaging in this kind of drivel from the outset, and he's back at it again since his latest political u-turn last fall.
If he expressed what might have sounded as some "preference" for Shia over Sunni Islam during the intermediate period (which lasted no more than a couple of years), this was merely part of an overall strategy, namely the attempt to broaden the support base of the Islamic Republic so as to include as many non-religious people as possible, in hopes that this would gradually push the political system in Iran to secularize and to move away from Islamic governance and sharia law. That's all there is to his ephemeral, purely tactical "preference" for Shia Islam, which as said has once again given way to intense contempt (listen to any of his videos since last October, they are filled with offensive language against Imams (a.s.) of Shia Islam and Shia
mo'menin).
Nowadays Dana is, on the contrary, could be heard defending the oppositionist Sunni cleric molana Abdol-Hamid of Zahedan (which the writer of the article under discussion probably supports too) when the mosque he preaches at on one occasion allowed female visitors regardless of whether or not they would be observing hejab. Dana is recurrently praising the Saudi crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman for his liberal reforms, and going on about how "Shia are more superstitious than Sunnis". Does this mean there's a natural affinity between Iranian ultra-nationalists and Sunni Islam? Of course not. In the same way as there's no natural propensity for said nationalists to associate themselves with Shiaism, something the article clearly obfuscates.
Another issue with the paper is how the statement that Azari Iranians or Arab Iranians are not "ethnically" dissimilar to other Iranians, is seen by the author as a manifestation of "Persian supremacism". Genetic studies have shown this to be true however, so there's nothing supremacist or racist about it. Plus, the fact that the zionist regime is bent on promoting "ethno"-separatism in order to balkanize Iran is also very well documented. Unlike what the article is insinuating therefore, countering this plot is not tantamount to oppressing minorities. Rather, it's an existential imperative for the Islamic government.
There's also a photographic illustration in the article where HezbOllah fighters can be seen performing the Roman salute, next to images of members of the neo-fascist SUMKA party in a similar posture. Which tends to suggest that some sort of an inherent ideological nexus exists between IR-backed Shia Islamic Resistance groups on the one hand and Iranian ultra-nationalism and Nazism on the other. This is incorrect. As you probably know, this salute is still very much practiced by various (para-)military formations across the entire Levant, tracing its roots to Roman tradition rather than German National-Socialism. As for it being specific to Shia Moslems, here's an example of Sunni Moslem Palestinian brothers carrying out the same gesture:
The unfounded attempt to draw parallels between Shia Islam and Iranian secular ultra-nationalism is also visible in statements such as the following:
He [Fuladvand] briefly studied Arabic in Egypt and was capable of semi-correctly quoting directly from Arabic books. He wildly quoted from secondary (and even weaker) sources of history (exactly what Shia clerics and polemicists are known for) claiming to have debunked Islam. Many of the gullible Iranian (Shi’ites) followed him into Hellfire.
Not to mention the article's open hostility towards the Islamic Republic, towards Supreme Leader Khamenei, and towards shahid Qasem Soleimani.
So this is definitely a skewed source. But I guess you're aware of it. For users who might not be, the above information would be important to consider.
www.euronews.com
