What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bangladesh should stay the f**** away and mind its own business.It is not Bangladesh's duty to solve Arab-Persian problems.Our Sunni majority and Shia minority stay peacefully together.This a really worthless thread!
 
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.
This b.s of an article was written before Zardari (a shia) became president.
 
Iran is a great country. Which only got real backbone among those nations. We dont need to take any side here. We need to keep our good relation with all the countries there. If possible then Israel too.
 
technically speaking, Iran have more balls to stand up to the big daddy. I'd go with Iran :D
 
This b.s of an article was written before Zardari (a shia) became president.

This BS was written in a book by Vali Nasr, an Iranian Shia professor:
Vali Nasr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim League leadership was dominated by Crypto Shia Nawab family of Dhaka. Jinnah was Shia, married to a Parsi. Yes he was secular, but so are many Shia, except when it comes to remaining clannish and helping their own kind. Jinnah's sponsor's were Shia for the project Pakistan. Many of them moved to both parts of Pakistan and became the 22 industrial families of Pakistan. Iskander Mirza (Sirajuddaula, Mir Jafar et al were all Shia). A good chunk of the so called "Bihari" were Shia. @Md Akmal is not a Bihari, I believe he is a Bengali, he can state his home district to confirm.

So Shia got an entrance to South Asia due to Humayun's defeat with Sher Shah and subsequent help he received from Safavi's in Iran. I believe the result was a disaster for the Muslim community in South Asia. The Shia became dominant in subsequent Mughal administration, from Mumtaj Mahal (of Taj Mahal fame) to Murshid Quli Khan, who moved the capital from Dhaka to Murshidabad. I believe they not only weakened the Mughal empire and saw its demise, they also collaborated with the British, like Mir Jafar, Ismaili Aga Khani's and Dhaka Nawab's and got fabulously wealthy as a result.

They were instrumental in creating Pakistan, thinking that Pakistan will remain their personal clan property to enjoy, but East Pakistan broke off, because they failed to foresee the result of their actions and eventually they lost Pakistan as well, when Bhutto was deposed by Zia. Yes Benazir Bhutto's mother is an Iranian Shia, so is Zardari family.

And Yahya Khan, the butcher, was a Qizilbash Shia, one of the most reviled group of people in Sunni Muslim history who helped establish the Safavi dynasty in present day Azerbaijan and then expand itself in Iran and then convert the largely Sunni population there to Shia by force.

It is a sordid history, Bangladeshi's and Pakistani's need to know it, because it is a hidden part many of us do not know about very clearly. Arab's have been dealing with the trecherous Shia for 1400 years. So Arab Sunni's know them and their ways much better. From Lebanon Civil War to post Saddam Iraq and now in Syria, the Shia Mafia with help from Russian Mafia are killing Sunni's.

Shia is the enemy within much more dangerous than any other enemy, because they claim to be part of us, but they are anything but.

Many posters in this forum are Shia, some cannot hide it well, but others will hide it well. And they will work to weaken unity of Sunni Muslim communities of the world. They will show off as secular when they are weak, but the moment they gain upper hand, they will show their true sectarian face.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...-soldiers-during-operation-searchlight-7.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This BS was written in a book by Vali Nasr, an Iranian Shia professor:
Vali Nasr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim League leadership was dominated by Crypto Shia Nawab family of Dhaka. Jinnah was Shia, married to a Parsi. Yes he was secular, but so are many Shia, except when it comes to remaining clannish and helping their own kind. Jinnah's sponsor's were Shia for the project Pakistan. Many of them moved to both parts of Pakistan and became the 22 industrial families of Pakistan. Iskander Mirza (Sirajuddaula, Mir Jafar et al were all Shia). A good chunk of the so called "Bihari" were Shia. @Md Akmal is not a Bihari, I believe he is a Bengali, he can state his home district to confirm.

So Shia got an entrance to South Asia due to Humayun's defeat with Sher Shah and subsequent help he received from Safavi's in Iran. I believe the result was a disaster for the Muslim community in South Asia. The Shia became dominant in subsequent Mughal administration, from Mumtaj Mahal (of Taj Mahal fame) to Murshid Quli Khan, who moved the capital from Dhaka to Murshidabad. I believe they not only weakened the Mughal empire and saw its demise, they also collaborated with the British, like Mir Jafar, Ismaili Aga Khani's and Dhaka Nawab's and got fabulously wealthy as a result.

They were instrumental in creating Pakistan, thinking that Pakistan will remain their personal clan property to enjoy, but East Pakistan broke off, because they failed to foresee the result of their actions and eventually they lost Pakistan as well, when Bhutto was deposed by Zia. Yes Benazir Bhutto's mother is an Iranian Shia, so is Zardari family.

And Yahya Khan, the butcher, was a Qizilbash Shia, one of the most reviled group of people in Sunni Muslim history who helped establish the Safavi dynasty in present day Azerbaijan and then expand itself in Iran and then convert the largely Sunni population there to Shia by force.

It is a sordid history, Bangladeshi's and Pakistani's need to know it, because it is a hidden part many of us do not know about very clearly. Arab's have been dealing with the trecherous Shia for 1400 years. So Arab Sunni's know them and their ways much better. From Lebanon Civil War to post Saddam Iraq and now in Syria, the Shia Mafia with help from Russian Mafia are killing Sunni's.

Shia is the enemy within much more dangerous than any other enemy, because they claim to be part of us, but they are anything but.

Many posters in this forum are Shia, some cannot hide it well, but others will hide it well. And they will work to weaken unity of Sunni Muslim communities of the world. They will show off as secular when they are weak, but the moment they gain upper hand, they will show their true sectarian face.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangla...-soldiers-during-operation-searchlight-7.html

and your point is....? it was written before a shia became president of Pakistan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Saudis do not have any monopoly over Islam. Secondly, Iran is a more capable country than Saudi in any given day. I urge not to make such ridiculous statements as there are many shias in this forum and like others have pointed out, bangladesh has no stake in this field.
Secondly, Monarchy and Supreme leaders are have no basis and there should be no reason why we should be enslaved to any of them. With a population of 180 million of most of which are very young, I personally believe Bangladesh should play a major global role in the next 3 decades and we should dictates our own term rather be enslaved to any self appointed kings and monarchs. just my opinion
 
Kalu_miah,

You really should look at a map sometimes.... The levant, the Maghreb, GCC, AU and the Muslims countries of ASEAN are quite far away from us. BD stands alone and it makes no strategic interest for us to get involved in trying to mend the rift. BD foreign policy is Friendship to all, malice to none..... That should never change...

You should thank the Shia clique who created Pakistan, dividing and boxing in the Sunni Muslim community in 3 different countries and thus making Bangladesh an isolated Muslim country. Shia Ismaili's were close to the British and British wanted to reward the Hindu's and weaken Sunni Muslims, just like they were instrumental in breaking up Ottoman. Essentially partition engineered by this Shia clique gifted a Ram Rajya Hindutva supa powa to Hindu's of India and permanently divided and weakened Sunni Muslims of South Asia. Sunni Maudoodi (I do not support his ideology), Badshah Khan (Pashtun) and Abul Kalam Azad, all of them, including Deobandi Ulama's opposed the idea of Partition, as they thought that it would weaken Muslims of South Asia.

All of that is history. In this age of air travel and maritime goods transport, distance is not an issue. If Iran can support Hezbollah in Lebanon, we also can support majority Sunni Arab countries.
 
I heard there are about 50,000 Shia in Bangladesh, in a country of 150 million Muslims, but I don't have exact numbers. So you are right, this is not a domestic issue for Bangladesh, like some idiots are trying to imply, claiming that there will be some Shia-Sunni civil war in Bangladesh.

What it is, is a foreign policy issue for Bangladesh. Since 1975, when Bangladesh got into OIC, 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.

If getting aid from a country means we should side with the Arab agenda...by your logic we should wholeheartedly support the US agenda of attacking Iraq,Afghanistan and killing 'anti-American' elements in Pakistan as the US is the largest provider of aid to Bangladesh.The migrant workers are not privileged in Sunni Arab countries.They work for their living and are treated as slaves.The SUNNI Arabs don not care about SUNNI Bangladeshis like you!
 
The Saudis do not have any monopoly over Islam. Secondly, Iran is a more capable country than Saudi in any given day. I urge not to make such ridiculous statements as there are many shias in this forum and like others have pointed out, bangladesh has no stake in this field.
Secondly, Monarchy and Supreme leaders are have no basis and there should be no reason why we should be enslaved to any of them. With a population of 180 million of most of which are very young, I personally believe Bangladesh should play a major global role in the next 3 decades and we should dictates our own term rather be enslaved to any self appointed kings and monarchs. just my opinion

It is an issue of Sunni majority integration of Arab League that has a combined population of 400 million. Whether there is monarch in Saudi or Emirates is not our problem, that is for them to decide. Just count what we got from Sunni countries and what we may get compared to what we got and will get from Iran, a big fat zero and it will always remain a big fat zero in the future. Shia Iran has helped Hezbollah in Lebanon and Alawites in Syria, what did they do for Bangladesh? What did the GCC monarchies do for Bangladesh?

If getting aid from a country means we should side with the Arab agenda...by your logic we should wholeheartedly support the US agenda of attacking Iraq,Afghanistan and killing 'anti-American' elements in Pakistan as the US is the largest provider of aid to Bangladesh.The migrant workers are not privileged in Sunni Arab countries.They work for their living and are treated as slaves.The SUNNI Arabs don not care about SUNNI Bangladeshis like you!

Yes, that is how the saying goes, but these "slaves" send remittance that help our country survive, what did Iran or any other Shia do for us?
 
Bangladesh should stay out of this at any cost. Learn from Pakistan.

Many people would justify their stands. Sunnis extremist opportunists would invoke religious emotions, Shiites extremist opportunists would do the same.

In reality these extremists are just opportunists.

Bangladesh must stay out of this.
 
It is an issue of Sunni majority integration of Arab League that has a combined population of 400 million. Whether there is monarch in Saudi or Emirates is not our problem, that is for them to decide. Just count what we got from Sunni countries and what we may get compared to what we got and will get from Iran, a big fat zero and it will always remain a big fat zero in the future. Shia Iran has helped Hezbollah in Lebanon and Alawites in Syria, what did they do for Bangladesh? What did the GCC monarchies do for Bangladesh?



Yes, that is how the saying goes, but these "slaves" send remittance that help our country survive, what did Iran or any other Shia do for us?

These SLAVES WORK........they PROVIDE labor........stop looking at it as if it was an ARAB GIFT......the labors sell their service for money......Your logic should apply for our support to the United States too......Please address that issue!
 
It is an issue of Sunni majority integration of Arab League that has a combined population of 400 million. Whether there is monarch in Saudi or Emirates is not our problem, that is for them to decide. Just count what we got from Sunni countries and what we may get compared to what we got and will get from Iran, a big fat zero and it will always remain a big fat zero in the future. Shia Iran has helped Hezbollah in Lebanon and Alawites in Syria, what did they do for Bangladesh? What did the GCC monarchies do for Bangladesh?
90% of all our foreign earnings from EU and States and most NGOs are western. Should we let them dictates our terms and give out soverignty? Secondly, if you have visited any Middle eastern countries, you yourself know better what the conditions are and generally speaking, how the perceive us. This is a two way street, they need us, and we need them. If you think otherwise, you are misinformed.
 
Bangladesh should stay out of this at any cost. Learn from Pakistan.

Many people would justify their stands. Sunnis extremist opportunists would invoke religious emotions, Shiites extremist opportunists would do the same.

In reality these extremists are just opportunists.

Bangladesh must stay out of this.

Bangladesh and Pakistan situation is not the same, Shia's are 15-20% of population and many in middle and upper classes, in Bangladesh they are not even 0.5%. So we have the luxury to take sides, much more so than Pakistan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom