The Awakening Sunni Giant (Recomended)

[Developereo]

However the only thing we the Paks must do as Sunnis and Shias, is to

denounce the clowns called Ayatullahs and Sunni-Arab Mullahs.

The real rivalry is ethnic, Persians v/s (some) Arabs.

There is no serious tension between Iran and Egypt, for example, and the Iranian-Turkish rivalry is more about political influence than Shia-Sunni divide.

The Iranians and Gulf Arabs have each taken on the mantle to represent Shia and Sunni, respectively, and are using that to attract allies elsewhere in the Muslim world.

 

[Silverblaze]

The real rivalry is ethnic, Persians v/s (some) Arabs.

There is no serious tension between Iran and Egypt, for example, and the Iranian-Turkish rivalry is more about political influence than Shia-Sunni divide.

The Iranians and Gulf Arabs have each taken on the mantle to represent Shia and Sunni, respectively, and are using that to attract allies elsewhere in the Muslim world.

I partly agree with you, but since this Shiite vs Sunni discord has been embraced wholeheartedly by both sides, it has become the real reason to fight now.

It may have started off as an ethnic or strategic rivalry, but now it has become a Sunni Shiite conflict as many Shiite Arabs also expect support from Iran. Syria and Iraq are an example.

 

[anonymus]

The real rivalry is ethnic, Persians v/s (some) Arabs.

There is no serious tension between Iran and Egypt, for example, and the Iranian-Turkish rivalry is more about political influence than Shia-Sunni divide.

The Iranians and Gulf Arabs have each taken on the mantle to represent Shia and Sunni, respectively, and are using that to attract allies elsewhere in the Muslim world.

If the rivalry is ethnic, then why is Shia Persian supporting Shia Arab against Sunni Arab.They should have stayed neutral.

LOLO

There is nothing ethnic in this conflict. Individual Iranians may feel smug because of ethnicity but Iran today is a Shia theocratic republic with " Arab " origin Shia mullahs ruling over it.

 

[Developereo]

I partly agree with you, but since this Shiite vs Sunni discord has been embraced wholeheartedly by both sides, it has become the real reason to fight now.

It may have started off as an ethnic or strategic rivalry, but now it has become a Sunni Shiite conflict as many Shiite Arabs also expect support from Iran. Syria and Iraq are an example.

Yes, the genie has left the bottle and it will be hard to put it back in.

However, as Pakistanis, our first goal should be to make our people understand that it is not our fight. This is not about Shia v/s Sunni, but a millenia old conflict between Persians and Arabs, long before Islam.

Hopefully, the rest of the Muslim world would also realize this and confine the conflict to its main protagonists.
Eventually, the Persians and Arabs can come to their senses.

If the rivalry is ethnic, then why is Shia Persian supporting Shia Arab against Sunni Arab.They should have stayed neutral.

LOLO

There is nothing ethnic in this conflict. Individual Iranians may feel smug because of ethnicity but Iran today is a Shia theocratic republic with " Arab " origin Shia mullahs ruling over it.

The Shia-Sunni rivalry has been deliberately inflamed and played up by the Iranians and some Arabs. Shias and Sunnis manage to live alongside just fine in the rest of the world.

 

[anonymus]

The Shia-Sunni rivalry has been deliberately inflamed and played up by both sides. Shias and Sunnis manage to live alongside just fine in the rest of the world.

Shias are in minority and as is true with any minority, they use to live alongside with sunnis as long as they accepted their disadvantaged position.

The rivalry has got inflamed with Shias (minority) getting political power in some parts of muslim world which could not be digested by Sunnis who use to rule over them.

And irrespective of how hard you try, it would remain a Sectarian conflict rather than ethnic one. Iran today is Theocratic Shia republic not a persian republic with their leaders staking claim on global leadership of Shias.

 

[FaujHistorian]

The real rivalry is ethnic, Persians v/s (some) Arabs.

There is no serious tension between Iran and Egypt, for example, and the Iranian-Turkish rivalry is more about political influence than Shia-Sunni divide.

The Iranians and Gulf Arabs have each taken on the mantle to represent Shia and Sunni, respectively, and are using that to attract allies elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Bhai sahib

Persians simply picked up the sunni-shia $hit in 1500's thanks to the Shia inspired cleansing and coversion of the then "majority Sunni Iranis".


Before that time,

Shia-Sunni $hit was always an Arab vs. Arab $hit.


Sunni Arabs forked Shia Arabs and vise versa.


Yazeed was Arab and so was Hussain.


some say one of the many wives of Hussain was an ex-slave Iranian girl (supposed the mother of 4th Shia Imam).



Still it remained an Arab-Arab issue.


Iranians became major players only recently (will roughly 500 years ago).


Unfortunately, Pakistanis have lapped up this Shia-Sunni $hit and as a result colluded with Ayatullah $hit from Iran and Arab-Mullah $hit.




We'll carry on this $hit unless we denounce Iranian Ayatullahs and Arab Mullahs as the devils.

Only then we'll be free from this hatred.

 

[Developereo]

Shias are in minority and as is true with any minority, they use to live alongside with sunnis as long as they accepted their disadvantaged position.

The rivalry has got inflamed with Shias (minority) getting political power in some parts of muslim world which could not be digested by Sunnis who use to rule over them.

Not at all.

The Shia minority in Pakistan has been disproportionately successful, like the Parsi minority or the Ahmedi minority. No one had any problem with it until the foreign indoctrination came to town.

And irrespective of how hard you try, it would remain a Sectarian conflict rather than ethnic one.

Oh, we know very well who wants to keep inflaming the sectarian divide.
It's not just the Arabs and the Iranians.

Iran today is Theocratic Shia republic not a persian republic with their leaders staking claim on global leadership of Shias.

Yes, they are claiming to be. Doesn't mean that they are, or that most Shias outside Iran view them as such.

 

[Developereo]

Still it remained an Arab-Arab issue.


Iranians became major players only recently (will roughly 500 years ago).

Your point is valid.

However, the Persian-Arab rivalry goes back to the days of Cyrus, when Arabs joined with the Babylonians against Cyrus.
It may go back even further than that.

 

[Wholegrain]

Your point is valid.

However, the Persian-Arab rivalry goes back to the days of Cyrus, when Arabs joined with the Babylonians against Cyrus.
It may go back even further than that.

@Mahmoud_EGY I summoned you here because you always take the Persian side, what do you think of this?

The Arabs joined the Persians against the Egyptians when the Achaemenids invaded Egypt. The Arabs provided water skins on camels to the Persian army and the invasion was succesful.

Arabia (satrapy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cambyses II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Pelusium (525 BC) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period - Amelie Kuhrt - Google Books

From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire - Pierre Briant - Google Books

The Incense Road: Gaza

Achaemenid History
Herodotus tells how Cambyses, while on his way to invade Egypt (525 BC) approached a leader of the Arabs asking him for safe conduct and water supply. These Arabs were the ones that inhabited the area from Cadytis (Gaza) to the city of Ienysus (al-'Arish). (Herodotus III 4-9). The Arabian leader then filled camel skins with water and loaded them on his camels. He drove them into the desert and waited for Cambyses army to arrive. It seems that this Arabian gesture was helpful in making the Persian king pledge a peaceful relationship with the Arabs.

As a result of this privileged situation, the Arabs were listed among the very few people on whom tribute was not laid. (Herodotus III 91). Instead they rendered gifts as a pledge of loyalty to the Persian king. The yearly gift brought by the Arabs amounted to a thousand talents (around 30 tons) weight of frankincense.

Tiglath Pileser II also managed to conquer his way to Gaza, where he installed Idi-bi'ili (Adbe'el) as his agent on the Egyptian boarder, and in so doing managed to cut the incense road. (Moscati, The Semites in Ancient History pg 123).

Cambyses II (king of Persia) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

History of Achaemenid Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FaujHistorian]

Your point is valid.

However, the Persian-Arab rivalry goes back to the days of Cyrus, when Arabs joined with the Babylonians against Cyrus.
It may go back even further than that.

Off course.

If we go far enough, we can find rivalry between anyone and everyone.

But you have to provide some idea as to which Arab dynasty/king/major-tribe fought against Persian in the time of Babylonians.


However Shia-Sunni split is and has always been an Arab-Arab issue. Iranians are relatively new kid on the block.


Sometimes I think Safvi kings didn't plan this Ayatullah $hit. They were just interested in consolidating their hold on power, and putting down any kind of resistance.

It was just that Sunni Iranian civilization from pre-Safavi era simply collapsed in the hands of the new tyrant kings like Ismail.


persians were persecuted, murdered, cleansed until majority of them converted to Shia religion.



When people say Islam was spread by sword,

I say


Shia Islam in Iran was definitely spread by the murderous swords.


Sunni Islam? Well it depends on which region and when.


peace

 

[iranigirl2]

Don't forget that Iran, as the largest Shia country, will always protect its Shia brethren in the region, whether Iran is ruled by islamists, nationalists or secularists.

I think most people here don't know about Shah's and our previous rulers help to the Shias in Lebanon and Yemen, not to mention many Arab Iranians living in the south of Iran have ancestry from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, they moved to Iran, when Sunni monarchies started to prosecute them.

It doesn't matter who rules Iran, we will not forget out brothers and sisters in Faith.


and this conflict is not an ethnic conflict at all. this conflict is spread from the Lebanon to Indonesia. How could it be an ethnic war ???

Anyone interested in major conflicts in the near future should read The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel huntington . Future wars will be religious wars .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

 

[somebozo]

Who is Saudi Arabia to interfere to decide in Syrian affairs? A country which is always whinning and crying about Iranian interference in GCC affairs is actually meddling and interfering in other affairs? KSA is as serious as it was in ending communists in Afghanistan and the rest is all history. Same game new playground. Syria is Afghanistan 2.0.

I think most people here don't know about Shah's help to the Shias in Lebanon and Yemen.

It doesn't matter who rules Iran, we will not forget out brothers and sisters in Faith.

This is will continue to isolate Iran and will be previewed as hegemonic tendency. Iran should first try to bolster its relation with Azerbaijan before charging into support of fellow brothers in faith..the Umhahaha is a dead horse.

 

[iranigirl2]

Who is Saudi Arabia to interfere to decide in Syrian affairs? A country which is always whinning and crying about Iranian interference in GCC affairs is actually meddling and interfering in other affairs? KSA is as serious as it was in ending communists in Afghanistan and the rest is all history. Same game new playground. Syria is Afghanistan 2.0.



This is will continue to isolate Iran and will be previewed as hegemonic tendency. Iran should first try to bolster its relation with Azerbaijan before charging into support of fellow brothers in faith..the Umhahaha is a dead horse.

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

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

 

[FaujHistorian]

....... Shias have always been prosecuted ......

My dear.

I beg to differ with the use of "Always".

When Shia got the chance, they persecuted Sunnis and others
When Sunnis got the chance, they persecuted Shias.


However an Iranian should not be so dumb to ignore their own history and how Safvi "Shia" kings, forcibly converted majority Sunni Iran to Shia religion.


Please learn your own history madam.

Thank you.


p.s. you meant "persecuted". Right?

 

[Developereo]

But you have to provide some idea as to which Arab dynasty/king/major-tribe fought against Persian in the time of Babylonians.

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.

However Shia-Sunni split is and has always been an Arab-Arab issue. Iranians are relatively new kid on the block.

The Shia-Sunni rivalry has always been on the back burner, like divisions in all communities. Most ordinary people were never bothered by it; it was used by leaders to manipulate their flock.

Now, both the Iranians and Arabs have couched their ancient ethnic rivalry as a Shia-Sunni issue, in order to gain allies in the wider Muslim world.

If they said, "this is an Arab v/s Persian" matter, most people would shrug their heads and move on. But to convince people that it is their fight as well, they have to couch it in terms that they can relate to.