This is a change of statements, going from "Iran caused a stampede in Mecca" to the 1987 incident, which isn't exactly the same. What this shows, is incomplete mastery of the subject matter, where topics are confused with each other and where facts do not really matter anymore.
Now as concerns the 1987 incident, here's what happened: Iranian pilgrims joined by their Sunni Muslim brothers from a variety of origins including from places as removed as the Philippines, staged demonstrations against zionism and US imperialism. Which Saudi authorities did not acquiesce to authorize. When attacked by Saudi security forces, pilgrims fought back with whatever they could muster.
Firstly, this strike was claimed by Yemenis defending against Saudi aggression of their country. We don't know with certainty who carried it out.
But even assuming it was Iran, and this brings me to the second point, Saudi Arabia is a US vassal regime. It belongs to the zio-American imperial architecture and is playing a central role in it, namely by instituting the petro-dollar and thereby assisting the US in exerting its financial hegemony over the planet. Containing the Saudi regime is containing one of the region's foremost American allies, which in recent years established contacts with the zionist regime as well.
Thirdly, Saudi ruler Bin Salman had threatened to "bring the war onto Iranian soil" prior to the Abqaiq operation. This was followed by several terrorist attacks in Iran with probable support from Saudi intelligence. After the strike on Abqaiq, spectacular attacks of this kind ceased and Bin Salman gradually struck a more conciliatory tone, to the benefit of both sides.
Fourthly, this was a non-lethal attack. There's no comparison with the numerous direct and indirect clashes between Iran on the one hand and the zionist entity and US on the other.
Which starts off with the following sentence:
Moreover, preventive wars are illegal in international law. The Bush jr. regime in Washington sought to justify its illegal invasion of Iraq with preemptive notions.
Not to mention that whatever preemptive casus belli Saddam might have cobbled together, Iran would have had greater justifications by the very same logic, since as said Iraq concretely began reactivating "ethno"-separatist grouplets in the Iranian province of Khuzestan right in the aftermath of the 1979 Revolution.
Saddam's Iraq started the 1980-1988 war and Saddam bears full responsibility for it. Iran was in a situation of legitimate defense. No ifs or buts on this one.
A U.S. government body that monitors global religious freedom says conditions in Iran worsened last year, with escalated government targeting of non-Shi'ite Muslims and minority Baha’is and Christians.In its annual report published Monday, the bi-partisan U.S.
www.voanews.com
"A US government body that monitors global religious freedom"? No more needs to be said now, does it?
And I don't see how Iran can be accused of not being sincere in its Resistance against zio-American imperialism if it imposes restrictions on US-controlled Evangelicals trying to encourage Muslims to leave Islam, or on the British-sponsored Bahai sect, which claims that there are prophets after Muhammad (s).
And where does it say Iran organized this protest? How is a protest on some domestic issue in Pakistan the same as a revolution or attempted revolution? These problematics have had a long history in Pakistan, going back way before the Iranian Revolution.
1) There is no indication at all that the culprits were backed let alone directed to act in this manner by Iran. In the entire article, Iran isn't even mentioned a single time.
2) Any and all inter-communal violence in Iraq was kick started by the 2006 bombing of the Al-Askari shrine holy to Shia Muslims, perpetrated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "I"S. Prior to that, no killings whatsoever. You bomb a Shia holy site and mausoleum of a descendant of the Prophet, you will be guaranteed to have some angry people reacting the wrong way.
This communal violence was therefore neither provoked nor wished for by Iran, and there was nothing Iran could do about it once the bombing had happened, other than what it actually did - calls for calm by Iranian Shia clerics including marjas, invitations to Islamic unity, and so on and so forth.
3) There's no mention of joint operations between Iran and the US against "I"SIS in the article either.
Normal diplomatic relationship and working relationship, what's the big difference? It represents a change from the 1990's in either case.
Provide evidence as to this being the Taliban's standpoint on Iran. Speaking for others will not contribute to substantiating one's assertions.
Is there a source for this? Furthermore, did you conduct a proper survey of Iranian media? There's a plurality of opinions in Iran including in the media. For every one article making the above cited claim about the Taliban, I can show two which don't.
There's nothing in Iranian or in Taliban policy that corroborates this notion of a continuing, deep seated enmity. And this is what counts ultimately.
By virtue of hosting their representatives, conducting negotiations with them for several years in a row and reaching an agreement on how to envisage normalized bilateral relations, Iran has already legitimized the Taliban.
Furthermore, as far as integrating other parties into the future Taliban-led government, this is something the Taliban themselves have been pursuing for quite some time now. Just a few days ago, one of their spokespersons even invited someone like general Dostom back into Afghanistan, calling on him to lay down his arms and join the government.
We can also see from the way in which the Taliban peacefully escorted Ismail Khan (Iran's Sunni Muslim ally from Herat) to the Iranian border, that the two sides have been coordinating their actions.
Abdul Malik Pahlawan is Uzbek (and Sunni), not Hazara. And "3000" became "7000" in your previous post... Besides the fact that I wouldn't necessarily take any figures issued by Afghan warring parties at face value.
What is of note though, is that the Taliban according to this same quote from Wikipedia took their revenge on civilians and did so on an "ethnic" basis, whereas what they were accusing their opponents of, was the execution of fighters - not that executing POWs is permitted or acceptable, but to take it out on ordinary civilians is one step worse even.
Either way, massacres were committed by both sides and both sides had foreign sponsors. Certainly Iran did not direct Pahlawan to perpetrate these acts in 1997. But the whole point of establishing relations and finding a common ground for constructive ties is to get over the events of the 1990's Afghan civil war, not dwell on them forever.
Nobody knows for sure who committed these killings and according to the sole survivor of the massacre, it wasn't the Taliban.
Because it comes at a price not worth paying unless attacked. Which is referred to as deterrence, basic principle of geopolitics.
In other terms, for the same reason India can nuke Pakistan now but won't. For the same reason China can nuke India but won't. Yet, these states are enemies to each other. Not that hard to see, frankly.
Another American source... I must ask, are US media a beacon of truth? Especially when reporting on the US regime's adversaries? As well as a hostile Turkish one. Okay.
But even so, where do these papers claim Iran imposed Shia beliefs on non-Shia Muslims? You surely realize that imposing implies coercion and use of force. But nothing of the sort is being mentioned even in these papers.
Iran will do tabligh for Shia Islam like every other school does for itself, what's wrong with that? Plus, considering the mass of takfiri and sectarianist propaganda directed against Shia Islam, Iran has no choice but to respond. It will not sit idly while the Saudi regime spends many times the amount on targeting Shia Islam through its networks of salafist and wahhabi preachers, which once again are several times larger than anything Iran could ever afford to muster. Iran must therefore establish centers which will allow people get familiar with the Shia version of things, rather than permitting hostile currents to monopolize the discourse on Shia Islam.
I honestly don't understand what is meant by "changing scholars". Same with "forcing processions in Sunni dominated areas". As for altering demographics, that's not true and there's no evidence to this effect.
Western countries have actually opened their doors to massive Saudi-funded salafist learning centers and have allowed imams on Saudi payroll to take over mosque after mosque.
When it comes to Shia Islam, they have favored the anti-IR Shirazi clan and similar groups, all of which are extremely hostile to the Iranian Leadership. Pro-Iranian Shia associations are like a drop in the ocean over here.
Which original, real Shia sects? As for the Safavids, they relied on Arab scholars from Lebanon and Iraq to a considerable extent. Twelver Shia Islam existed long before the Safavid dynasty, hence why Lebanon, which was part of the Ottoman Empire, had Twelver Shia scholars which the Safavids promoted to leading scholarly positions.
Iranians do not have and never had a monopoly on sufi doctrines. These have existed throughout the Arab, Turkic and South Asian world as well.
This is racialist prejudice right here. Suggesting that Iranians, whether Shia or Sunni, are somehow predisposed to adopting and promoting deviated beliefs because of their national origins... Besides, there are enough non-Iranian Muslims who do not share these above quoted characterizations of Rumi. However this is a purely theological discussion and has really nothing to do with nationality.
I would need to reiterate then: Ruhollah is not a title but a first name in this specific context. I have no clue about its origins, I'm not a historian of names. And therefore I will refrain from drawing prejudicial conclusions when lacking the required knowledge. It could literally have dozens of possible explanations.
en.wikipedia.org
foreignpolicy.com
politicstoday.org
prospect.org
