Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Amica, Jul 31, 2015.
The West will be beat soon but the West itself will precipitate it's demise. Not anyone else
I was talking about the direction, like on a compass, as a tongue in cheek joke version.
Lol. I get it now!
Everything has a life span
I.e. the West will attack Islam, Muslims will fight back in defence, and conquer the West. That's how the West will bring about it's own destruction
The west is attacking radical Islamic extremism (except the house of saud)
We should be curtailing radical right Christian extremism. But we don't want a civil war, and current leadership is riding that wave.
Much as Islamic folk are with the wahabbists/salifists in Saudi...they like the bennies
What's going on in Yemen, can you explain? All I ever get is sad headshakes in response.
Yemen is very sad however all wars are. We never hear of civilians being massacred in Syria for example do we?, or how they're dying of famine and lack of medicine.
The media just mentions the suffering of people of countries at war, which it has an interest in stopping sadly *.
Any war these days are heertbreaking due to inevitable civilian casualties etc however if the West really cared to stop this suffering, it could lend it's military support to the legitimate Yemen government and help it to quickly over-power the houthi rebels.
What is Saudi supposed to do?, stop it's Ariel bombing and risk a Iran/shia takeover of Yemen or risk a shia state in Yemen and thereby risk it's own sovereignty to the age old shia enemy of sunni Islam?
I don't think that's likely so the West should step in and assist Yemen and Saudi to defeat the terrorists quick time. That's how you stop civilian suffering in a complicated war like this.
* the media and other western politicians' and activists interest in stopping the Saudi bombing of houthis is not to save civilian suffering as they make out. Because if they really cared they would have campaigned all these years for stopping Afghan, Syria rohingya etc etc suffering too. Their interests is really 'divide and conquer'. They'd love to see Yemen split into two
What A evil hypocrite state of affairs western politics is in these days. We only feign civilian concern when we see a political or financial benefit to us
Oil lubricates the war machine
Inre the OP,
Has it been discovered beyond a reasonable doubt what is enjoined in Islam's scripture yet?
Is "IT" enjoined in script or not?
Was is decided already earlier in this thread? What post#?
Hm, not sure about such easy solutions. "The West" tried that in Afghanistan, in Irak and Syria, in Somalia... not successfully, neither in terms of reducing civilian suffering nor in terms of military success against the enemies.
Your answer regarding Yemen made me ask more questions. How can Saudi Arabia be threatened in its sovereignity if a neighboring state has a Shiite government? And assuming Iran is behind this, how is Iran backing one party in this war different from Saudi Arabia backing, say, the Taliban, or groups in Cechnya? And finally, what's up with the Sunni-Shia thing that it erupts into such infighting?
I think the Sunni-Shia thing is more manufactured for political reasons having to do with economics much more than genuine religious concern or interest. Sunni and Shia and Muslims in general typically get along just fine in proximity but the Shia are a minority which seem a little alien or weird in some of their practices to a majority outsider with little exposure to them.
The US, Israel, Britain, Germany, France, and Russia, even China as usual have been fighting another Cold War or proxy war, this time through Sunni and Shia issues and other issues in Muslim majority countries.
The Americans and Russia want the rights and property to affordably or cheaply construct massive logistic gateways for trade and fuel throughout Asia and the Middle East and Africa. Gazprom is Russia's monster and America has their industry. Israel is also part of construction plans and other things, and Britain and Germany also have numerous contracts and benefits.
All this has to do with trade, prices, and who gets to be the dominant profiteer, and none of them care about the villagers in the mix who are as expendable as any pests, but messing around with making one side or another seem good or bad is part of the Great Game.
This is old fashioned Imperialism like that of the European powers in the past recent history, all the same, but instead of Kings, its Nations, Companies, and Governments (it always really was, but now its less overt).
China has contracts in Africa and all over the world, they are fighting with Japan and South Korea. America is fighting Russia, Britain is in some bidding war with Germany for contracts in the middle east.
Russia supports the Syrian government, America and Israel secretly supports the efforts against Russia. Russia and Iran are friendly, America doesn't like that Russia is making so much money from their business alliances. So the Yemen issue is a proxy war. Saudi is America's business partner, they've basically been told that if they decide to leave this partnership, "We won't be able to protect you" from efforts to overthrow their rule by American funded efforts and Russian funded efforts both. They are basically hostages who are concerned about securing their future once the oil runs out as their main resource, their other resource is religion. Turkey used to rule Saudi and is still bitter, Turkey is friends with Germany and Japan, for a long time. Russia is friends with Social Revolution countries like Iran and use Muslim conflicts to try to benefit. China and India are in a constant struggle over production rights and contracts but China entered into its own with oil deals in Africa.
There is a whole hidden world of this stuff underlying the very lame news reports which don't deeply discuss the resources and contracts at stake and who is funding the efforts.
Nobody is truly loyal to anyone in this game though, and sometimes people seek help and protection, and sometimes its more like the Mafia or how Japan was forced opened with a gun to its head.
Native rights groups are often battling efforts that they feel rip them off even further and try to bypass paying them for land and construction rights and taxation, thats why its easier and cheaper for some companies and nations to secretly fund groups of marauders to go wipe out entire villages or even cities so that no one is left to complain or ask for rights to build. These marauders are expendable pirates, if they don't do their end of the bargain or try to ask for more money, they will be bombed out of existence or fumigated or burned by phosphorous or whatever.
Back in the day, East Africa wanted independence from medicines and foreign pharmaceutical companies high costs and fees. They were the first targets of "Islamic Radicals" and they targeted medicine production which only truly benefited Western Pharmaceutical companies. The Boston Tea Party was a bunch of people dressed up as Native Americans, its the same bull. They were being funded and operated through a network by corporate interests in the West and did nothing at all to benefit Muslims or Muslim nations truly, only to be an excuse and black operation benefiting Western Powers and NATO. See Operation Gladio for more of the same "false flag" fascist trickery.
So it's not Islam but Russia who is a threat to the West? Or China? But China is cracking down on its Uighur minority, who are Muslim? So is it a religious threat? Is it threatening "the East"as well? Or an economic one? Or terrorism?
Iran is arming the houthis in Yemen. This is a known fact which some Google searches should verify
Basically, Iran wants to dominate all Muslim countries with shiaism (note how Iran lends it's military support to the shia governments of Iraq and Syria) as they believe that to be the true Islam and they regard Sunnis as hypocrites
So if there is a shia takeover of Yemen or a shia state established in Yemen then it would be ultimately an Iranian colony and Irans ultimate goal is to rule the 2 holy cities of Makkah and Medinah.
Remember when Saddam invaded Quwait and Americans told Saudi that Saudi is at risk of invasion too as Saddam is on their border?
Well Iran or a shia state on border of Saudi is far more risky as shias have more imperial tendencies over Saudi then Saddam
It's no different but Saudi has to defend itself from future invasion.
The Sunni shia friction all started in early days of Islam. The Iranians converted to Islam but then a jew pretending to be Muslim* came to the Iranians and introduced new ideas about Islam to them and convinced the Iranians that that was the right interpretation and the rest of the Muslims got it wrong. So Iranians started calling themselves shia's (partisans) and have been trying to overthrow Sunni rulers ever since and implement their shiasm over all Muslims
The Shia are really most likely an attempt of Persians to separate themselves from Arab dominance and later Turk and Mongol dominance. Persians had been a dominant Empire for many hundreds of years and had a hatred for being dominated by a foreign power such as the conquering Arabs, so instead of going back to claims of Persian heritage, they claimed to be the elite of the Islamic Empire by blood relation to Muhammed in order to regain their former glory and power in the new dominant paradigm.
It worked, and they were able to get independence from the Arab rulers who had taken on a Late Antiquity Greco Roman government and flavor, the old enemies of the Persians, Rome. The other part of the Roman Empire was to become very much imbued with a "Barbarian" culture of the Germanic and European influence, and these became the three big boys, with Persia never really regaining their former influence but still maintaining their separation and elitist ideas and frequently working their wiles in politics with groups like the Assassins and others when the Sunnis would come around again and try to dominate the region or government of formerly Persian territories. Persia as Zoroastrians had always been a unique group and everywhere there had been worshippers of Ormazd there arrived Shia groups and Shia off-shoots which were a very Persian style and influenced brand of Islam while Sunnis had their influence from Baghdad, Mesopotamia, and Greek traditions. Jews were also in the mix as there had long been a Jewish population in the areas which became Muslims of various sorts, but Islam was also very influential on Judaism more than people might realize or admit.
Shia Islam only became the state religion in Iran from the 16th century onward, but Iranian independence from Arab rule was pretty much a "done thing" in the 10th century.
I always thought the Shia-Sunni split was about early disputes about succession in the Khalifate? Ali vs Muawiyah? But that was way back when. How about today? Are Saudi Arabia and Iran the only groups trying to force the one true Islam on all Muslims? What about disagreements between schools within the Sunni or Shia camps?
Yes. It's completely plausible that various interests will exploit these religious differences. Oil and gas are literally the lifeblood of modern civilization. It's essentially to ensure the supply?
Although it doesn't relate directly to Yemen, I have always found this gas pipeline thing to be plausible:
"... Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.
As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.
In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.
But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.
This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.
As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”
TWO NEW PIPELINES
Before the civil war, two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria.
Qatar’s plans were first put forward in 2009 and involved building a pipeline from the Persian Gulf via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.
The gas field located 3000 metres below the floor of the Persian Gulf is the largest natural gas field in the world. Qatar owns about two-thirds of the resource but can’t capitalise on it fully because it relies on tankers to deliver it to other countries and this makes its gas more expensive than Russia’s.
It was hoped the pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.
In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.
These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.
Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.
Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.
Failed pipeline bidder Qatar is believed to have funded anti-Assad rebel groups by $3 billion between 2011 and 2013. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of funding the terrorist group.
I think the Persian Empire history issue still played a part in the struggle and development of the sects even though Shia did not officially take over the area until later.
Cool post after yours as well with pictures and everything!
The shia sect was created during early days of Islam and it wasn't about Muwaiyahs dispute with Ali (ra); that was an unfortunate sunni/sunni dispute.
One fallacy shias adopted in their schism was that Ali (ra) should have been the righteous caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as they idolised him. This idolisation wasn't out of respect or admiration of him but just a deviancy introduced by Abdullah ibn sabah to pit them against the wider body of Muslims
Saudi doesn't try to enforce their version of Islam in the military sense, although it will support Sunni Islam against other parties
Yes there are disagreements between Sunni and Shia camps, however Iran tends to support shia sects as Saudi supports Sunni sects, e.g. assads alawite sect deviates from mainstream shiasm just as Saudi salafi sect deviates from Taliban deobandism but in the grand scheme of things, it's better to support those closer to you then further
It seems groups are bad, individuals can be good. I love "The American Way" because militant/legal control of creativity and beliefs is a nightmare for me (notice my resistance towards being limited or censored too much?). I'd be dead meat if I didn't have the protection of Sodomerican or Western ideals.
Separate names with a comma.