Wahabism has its roots in Saudia way before Khomeni and their agenda is well known. Saudi penetration in pakistan and afghanistan was largely motivated to set up their own wahabist clients that would remain steadfast to the calls of their puritanical saudi masters (part of their global little jihad). Of course Khomenis's rise of shiite theology were anathema to the wabahi sect and the same approach continues today. Wahabism has been militant right since its inception and their quixotic jihad to correct the entire muslim ummah is responsible for what we see today in Pakistan.
Whatever the differences we can and have in the past lived in harmony.
Let me repeat again - Geist You are looking into matters *with one eye blinkered widely shut *
The aggressiveness of Khomeini's revolution and open intent to export it to places where 12ers were minority while repressing others at home did put fuel on any simmering issues if there were any.
You are just pushing your slanted views uneven handedly. (I'm no fan of al sauds they are corrupt to the core)
[QUOTE]
Whatever the differences we can and have in the past lived in harmony
[/QUOTE]
Really?!? Brush up your history - for a start read up on Safavids of Iran - that was centuries before al sauds got mentioned in history books. There were always faults lines in these two regionally but everything is Global nowadays.
Let me repeat again - Geist You are looking into matters *with one eye blinkered widely shut *
The aggressiveness of Khomeini's revolution and open intent to export it to places where 12ers were minority while repressing others at home did put fuel on any simmering issues if there were any.
You are just pushing your slanted views uneven handedly. (I'm no fan of al sauds they are corrupt to the core)
Were Shia minorities in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan capable and willing to overthrow the government and promulgate a shia theology? I doubt it. The base did not exist and the wahabis today suffer from the same myopia their suffered decades ago. Iran's extremism was mainly directed towards supporting groups such as Hezbollah and others against Israel and implicitly towards U.S. In anyway, the wahabi response was totally out of proportions and coupled with their intent to curb the communism with the help of pakistani intelligence and CIA engendered the extremist outlook we witness today. It was more of the wahabi inherent militant disposition that prompted them to disperse their jihad in pakistan not a vague threat from Khomeni's shiaism in pakistan.
[QUOTE]
Really?!? Brush up your history - for a start read up on Safavids of Iran - that was centuries before al sauds got mentioned in history books. There were always faults lines in these two regionally but everything is Global nowadays.
[/QUOTE]
What has this to do with pakistan?
anyhow, what i believe is that Pakistani shias and sunnies can and should learn to tolerate eachother and despite our differences appreciate the common. Although Pakistan is not a theocratic state, unfortunately religion intolerance has found its way. But the good thing is that the intolerant segment represents a minority and i believe the majority are much more understanding.
Most Muslims today are still living mentally in dark ages. They still idolize to conquer the world through military means. Even the educated lot.
They are incapable of fathoming the idea that in today's world, the word domination means economic domination only.
This medieval mentality is what causes some good brains of present day Muslims to spend more time discussing religion rather than discussing economy.
Remember Karl Marx, who said that religion is opium of masses. That is unfortunately very true in Muslims countries, including Pakistan.
Even though our illiteracy rate is abysmal, even though our infant mortality rate is abysmal, even though our youth have no jobs available (and no hopes), even though majority doesn't have access to clean water; but instead of discussing these very real problems, what do our smart brains do? They discuss shia sunni stuff.
khoji.. I just think that the good things about religion dont need to come from religoin anymore.. the good morals should just be general knowledge and awareness.. we shudnt need a book to tell us to be goood to other humans and not rape them..
so I dont see many plus points.. and I see way too many bad ones.. besides the violence etc it causes major delusion and distraction from key issues..
This thread is not for such discussion. A "religion section" is not intended for discussing why this section should not exist in the first place.
The aim here is to stop extremist thinking based on religion. And this aim is achievable by reminding people how miserable conditions are around them and how Islam can help make improvements. Your approach of condemning religion itself will only infuriate the already violent minds, and will move them towards extremism even more.
khoji.. you are right... this is not the right thread to discuss the concept of religion to much extent. I apologize - you guys carry on. I just wanted to point out that we should strive to end differences between all races religions ethnicities etc etc everything... all humans.. not just between shia and sunni.
I thought this thread was general and not Pakistan specific. Neither did the thread starter imply that it was Pakistan specific!
So I was giving you the global prospective – But keep in mind that Iran interfered in Pakistan just as much as Saudis did.
Anyways you seem to be prejudiced to one side.
Try to see the matters with both eyes open.
Were Shia minorities in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan capable and willing to overthrow the government and promulgate a shia theology? I doubt it. The base did not exist and the wahabis today suffer from the same myopia their suffered decades ago. Iran's extremism was mainly directed towards supporting groups such as Hezbollah and others against Israel and implicitly towards U.S. In anyway, the wahabi response was totally out of proportions and coupled with their intent to curb the communism with the help of pakistani intelligence and CIA engendered the extremist outlook we witness today. It was more of the wahabi inherent militant disposition that prompted them to disperse their jihad in pakistan not a vague threat from Khomeni's shiaism in pakistan.
Again you are speaking with prejudice and chauvinism and making statements without correct global view of matters.
Syria and 80% Sunni and ruled over by 15% Alawite Shia. So there is always a chance.
[QUOTE]
Iran's extremism was mainly directed towards supporting groups such as Hezbollah and others against Israel and implicitly towards U.S
[/QUOTE]
Besides that it was their declared policy to export their revolutions in the neighbouring countries by fermenting problems there. Post Khomeini this seems to have changed a lot that's why you can see lot of cooperation between Iran and Palestinian groups.
Geist You got to read a lot. Take my word for it. And try to give a balanced view and not skewed opinions.
This only has to do with Ibn Ishaque dude's bull cr** against shias.
Ibn Ishaque:
You may then be a fan of one-eyed dajjal Mullah of mufsideen.
khoji I’ll ignore the above as I don’t want to stoop low to your level. But I wish you well.
You already stooped to the low levels when you look down to political history of shias, and completely ignore your own history.
I wish to see you condemn Talibanic khariji fasadi mentality.
Ibn Ishaque:
[quote]
But keep in mind that Iran interfered in Pakistan just as much as Saudis did.
[/quote]
You should also keep in mind that the reason Pak currently is in this sh** hole of Talibanic fanaticism is all due to their Saudi backing. So even if one accepts your claim of Iran's interference in Pak, the Saudi interference has nothing but done the bayrra gharaq of Pakistan.
Anyways you seem to be prejudiced to one side.
Try to see the matters with both eyes open.
Ibn Ishaque:
[quote]
Syria and 80% Sunni and ruled over by 15% Alawite Shia. So there is always a chance.
[/quote]
except that Syrian government is socialist, and completely SECULAR.
Ibn Ishaque:
[quote]
Again you are speaking with prejudice and chauvinism and making statements without correct global view of matters.
[/quote]
Geist made a good point of why Iran's extremism was limited in nature, and why Wahhabi Talibanic kharijism in mainly responsible for current situation in Pakistan.
Your above post shows that you have no response to it. Your post is very generalized and personal, devoid of any substance.
You are doing exactly what the thread topic is condemning ... shia-sunni bull cr*p.
I wish to see you condemn Talibanic khariji fasadi mentality.
Ibn Ishaque:
You should also keep in mind that the reason Pak currently is in this sh** hole of Talibanic fanaticism is all due to their Saudi backing. So even if one accepts your claim of Iran's interference in Pak, the Saudi interference has nothing but done the bayrra gharaq of Pakistan.
Khoji show me one instance where I have supported 'Talibanic khariji fasadi' May be I hate them much more than you do.
You must accept that that I have my views too and have right to state them and I am never abusive to anyone as it's not my style. I accept that as a Shia you will never agree with me. You wouldn't be shia then would you?
by the way it's** Ibn Sadique **and not Ibn Ishaque :)
Khoji show me one instance where I have supported 'Talibanic khariji fasadi' May be I hate them much more than you do.
I did not quote you supporting the Talibanic kharijis. I only saw you talking against wahhabi Saudis, and so I only hoped that you have similar disdain for other similar extremists.
[quote]
You must accept that that I have my views too and have right to state them and I am never abusive to anyone as it's not my style.
[/quote]
You have right to state your views, and I have the right to show how distorted and crooked your views are against a particular group.
The words "bull cra**" are not mine. I just said that your obsession with discussion shia-sunni stuff is what was the original target of the thread starter.
[quote]
I accept that as a Shia you will never agree with me. You wouldn't be shia then would you?
[/quote]
We are not discussing shia philosophy here. This is more of a political discussion. A sunni will not become a shia if he accepts the satanic role Saudis and Talibanic khawarij have played against Muslims in general and Pakistan in particular.
But if you overlook this fact, and bring Iran in discussion for no reason then it only shows your myopic religious vision that cares less about facts.
Just admit it. It won't make you a shia.
[quote]
by the way it's** Ibn Sadique **and not Ibn Ishaque :)
[/QUOTE]
You should also keep in mind that the reason Pak currently is in this sh** hole of Talibanic fanaticism is all due to their Saudi backing. So even if one accepts your claim of Iran's interference in Pak, the Saudi interference has nothing but done the bayrra gharaq of Pakistan.
Geist made a good point of why Iran's extremism was limited in nature, and why Wahhabi Talibanic kharijism in mainly responsible for current situation in Pakistan.
Saudi backed views very different than Taliban. It has never been about establishing an Islamic government in Wahabism, bcoz Saudis themselves are not one, for them its always been about shirk and bidah. The Taleban ideology grew at home and promoted by US backed ziaism.
maybe i havent made my point clear enough. My whole point concerns the moderate culture that prevailed in** pakistan** in pre Zia period and the Afghan Jihad which proved to be the greatest watershed. and there is a reason i blame the saudis for the mess in pakistan.
[QUOTE]
Besides that it was their declared policy to export their revolutions in the neighbouring countries by fermenting problems there. Post Khomeini this seems to have changed a lot that's why you can see lot of cooperation between Iran and Palestinian groups.
[/QUOTE]
Yes the revolution could have inspired others. But there a few points that i would like to make. Firstly, what really pissed off the saudis was that a Khomeni 'style' revolution in saudi arabia would put their own kingdom and profligate lifestyle in danger. Secondly, they loathed Shiaism so there was no way they were going to let Iran a Shiite state rise to power ( as they continue to do today). Thirdly and most importantly, there was no way that iran could have instigated a revolution or much problem in pakistan because it never fullfilled the requirements. Furthermore, Iran's main concern has been Israel and America as is evident in their support in Lebanon.
[QUOTE]
But keep in mind that Iran interfered in Pakistan just as much as Saudis did.
[/QUOTE]
Really? who is responsible for the thousands of wahabi inspired madasrahs and wahabi funded mujahedin? Dude my whole discussion is what caused a moderate society like pakistan to plunge into this whole extremism? Would you deny the fact that the saudis funelled millions of dollars to their mujaheddin. Is it not true that ISI, through CIA, provided them with weapons, more dollars and support? Was it for Iranian militants? I dont see no damn iranian influence and whatever that influence was it was no where near Saudis and ISIs.
To conclude, wahabist approach had been from the beginning to rectify the biddats and false gods in Islam and the Iranian Kaffirun wouldnt be allowed to gain power.
Id like to ask a simple question. Were it the Saudi/ISI backed mujheddin, madarashs, training camps that paved the way for extremisim in Pakistan or was it Iran?