Bharat Rakshak

Shiv et al,

Talking about reforms within Islam is a start., but more importantly it has to be followed up by actions and that too state sponsored action.

We let muslims manage their own madarasas., this has to end. There should be state managed professional schools (engineering/doctor) attached to it is a madrasa where you can have "engineering mullahs" or "doctor mullahs" and is open to all genders and all faith.

This madrasas are not just pure studies in Islamic theology and jurisprudence, but are professional schools - that is, it will mint engineers and doctors and lawyers primarily. Additionally they have to have a sustained course in Islamic theology and jurisprudence.

So the question is asked what do they learn about Islamic Jurisprudence?

Simple, it is the state which decides to structure the course. It is basically opening the doors wide open by the state to break into a narrative offered by particular majhabs.

There is the concept of ijtihad.,

Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎ ijtihād, "diligence") is an Islamic legal term that means “independent reasoning” or “the utmost effort an individual can put forth in an activity.”[1] As one of the four sources of Sunni law, it is recognized as the decision-making process in Islamic law (sharia) through personal effort (jihad) which is completely independent of any school (madhhab) of jurisprudence (fiqh). As opposed to taqlid, it requires a “thorough knowledge of theology, revealed texts and legal theory (usul al-fiqh); an exceptional capacity for legal reasoning; thorough knowledge of Arabic.”[2] By using both the Qu'ran and Hadith as resources, the scholar is required to carefully rely on analogical reasoning to find a solution to a legal problem, which considered to be a religious duty for those qualified to conduct it. Thus, a mujtahid is recognized as an Islamic scholar who is competent in interpreting sharia by ijtihad. Today, there are many different opinions surrounding the role of ijtihad in modern society, and whether or not the “doors of ijtihad are closed.”

Such doors (ijtihad is one of them) should be opened up wide.

Why attach it to professional course? Of course, an engineer minted with a 7 year degree (4+3) in engineering+islamic jurisprudence can be sent to say mosque reconstruction or mosque building or can be tasked with re-designing muslim ghettos.

The net effect is to break the hold on narrative by traditional madrasas. And educates an entire section of gender (females) which are locked out of the Islamic debate. Empower muslim women to fight their own battles with the muslim men and secularize the Islamic teachings within the various schisms and you have a potent tool in your hand to further their cause.

Of course for this the state has to be careful, but it can be done - since a professional course attracts talent and also gives a chance for them to succeed in modern society.

The goal is to break the rigid narrative or at least open a door into a reform process.

akashganga wrote:My own thoughts are that islamists cannot debate. That religion cannot be reformed. Their founder has ordered them to fight until kafirs accept islam. So we indians have to be very careful and work hard to prevent these people from becoming majority in our land by illegal immigration from pakistan/bangladesh or through high birth rates. Otherwise all of India will be like syria of today.

Sorry to say sir, wrong on all counts. What you are alluding to is a zero-sum game. I personally do not think that stage has come., since I know several muslims who do not subscribe to "fight until kafirs accept islam". At the same time this professionals are in search of a narrative and here is where we can help them define an alternate and a better narrative, using Qurans' and Hadith's itself.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

disha I do not want this thread to veer off into Islamic reform. Trust me. There is method in my madness. Solutions to a problem cannot be discussed unless people realize and acknowledge that there is a problem. In the case of Islam there is profound denial from cognitive dissonance in Islamic society combined with secular reluctance to talk about it among the educated thinking people of India.

Within Islam there is an instant knee jerk reaction to any suggestion that there is any kind of problem by saying, "No. Islam is perfect. it's the people who are misguided or are miscreants". This is merely an excuse, a niqab/burqa that covers up the fundamental fact that violence and killing is a solution that is rapidly and easily arrived at within Islamic societies. That is the problem. Many times in the past we have pointed out how non Muslims are blamed for problems among Muslims and there is stony silence at shia-sunni violence.

That stony silence must go. The fact that in the so called "islamic world", Muslims who are misguided, miscreants or mischief mongers are mass murderers of other Muslims in the most ghastly attacks must be documented. The fact that violence occurs elsewhere and comes out of the US again is a torn-shirt-open-fly argument. Violence from the US or Israel is only used to mask and hide the fact that sunnis and shias are slaughtering each other. It won't be long before we hear of the next set of deadly bomb blasts in Iraq or the next slaughter in Quetta. That needs to be posted here as a one stop reference to show the level of bestial internecine violence that exists within Islamic societies and inside Islamic countries - violence that Islamic governments are completely unable to control. In many cases governments of richer Islamic states are actually sponsoring and funding the violence against shia Muslims or sunni Muslims.

There has to be a widespread transnational realization that "jihad" and violence are funded, sponsored and conducted within Islamic societies by people incited by Islamic preachers using Islamic gatherings such as speeches in mosques. Just because Muslims are slaughering each other does not mean that non Muslims have to put up with similar violence in empathy with murderous jihadis. It is murderous jihadis and their preachers and people who fund them who have to be throttled.

For that there must be publicity so that anyone who reads of violence in Islamic countries knows that it is Islamic jihad against Muslims that is chopping off childrens' heads and blowing up people. Exposing and publicizing the extent and sponsors of shia sunni violence and widespread, rampant murder of Muslims by Muslims is the first step at getting past cognitive dissonance and denial. "Reform" is a long way away.

One reason why it is important to document and record of instances of Muslims killing Muslim in shia versus sunni violence is because the rhetoric used to avoid scrutiny is highly refined.

Muslims don't kill Muslims, it is said. People are indignantly told not to link Muslims with violence. As for Islam, it is a religion of peace, so there can be no question of connecting it with anything but peace.

But every day sunni Muslims are slaughtering shia Muslims fighting jihad for a purer Islam. Those murders in turn are instigated and funded by Islamic clerics in mosques, on TV and social media. Those deaths are soon forgotten and dismissed as some faraway historic event. That is why the extent and violent means used need to be documented. There must be no denial. This thread is for documentation of that shia versus sunni violence.

Shiv, For a hardcore Sunni all others are not Muslim. Its non Muslims who can see the various 50 shades of Islam from Wahabi to Ahmediyyas. For sunnis its very green and white. They are green and others are w-e-b cutlets.
Its like limit analysis.

Shiv,

Coming to think of it longer, I think I understand your "method behind madness". It is not "madness", it is highly provocative (and borderline dangerous!)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 48429.html
Scores killed in string of Iraq attacks
More than 80 people, including 41 soldiers, killed across the country, just weeks before first national poll since 2010.

Violence across Iraq has killed more than 80 people, including 41 soldiers, and left scores more injured, amid the country's worst protracted period of unrest since 2008.

The bloodshed on Tuesday comes just weeks before Iraq is due to hold its first national vote since 2010, though the poll was thrown into disarray earlier when the entire electoral commission resigned over political interference.

In the deadliest attack, 22 soldiers were killed and 15 others injured in al-Nibaee village, near Taji city, north of Baghdad.

Al Jazeera's Imran Khan, reporting from the Iraqi capital, said the convoy came under intense fire and was hit by roadside bombs.

"We haven't seen an attack like this in about six to eight months," our correspondent said. "We don't know how many gunmen were involved in the attack.

"But it certainly must have been a significant number with the death toll we have seen."

Earlier, a suicide bomber detonated his explosives near an army convoy in Taji city, leaving at least five soldiers dead and 14 others injured.

Buhriz deaths

In Baghdad, nine people including six soldiers were killed when a truck laden with explosives was detonated on a bridge.

The explosion destroyed the al-Muthana bridge, which is considered strategic because it links the capital's northern outskirts to the Sunni provinces of Salah Din and Nineveh.

In the predominantly Sunni town of Tarmiyah, about 45km north of Baghdad, unknown gunmen attacked an army base killing eight soldiers and injuring 14 others.

In the mixed neighbourhood of Saidiyah, in southern Baghdad, four civilians were killed and 14 others injured when a parked car rigged with explosives was detonated.

In Buhriz, Diyala province, 33 people, including women, were executed by a sectarian militia on Tuesday, according to witnesses who spoke to Al Jazeera.

In the same province, four civilians were killed in clashes between the army and security guards belonging to members of parliament.

No group has claimed responsibility for most of the recent violence, but Sunni armed groups, including those linked to the powerful Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group, are typically blamed.

More than 400 people have been killed so far this month and upwards of 2,100 since the beginning of the year, according to the AFP news agency.

Analysts and diplomats have called for the Shia-majority government to do more to reach out to the disaffected Sunni minority in a bid to reduce support for armed groups, but with the April 30 election looming, political leaders have been loath to be seen to compromise.

http://www.nst.com.my/world/iran-hangs- ... s-1.532811
Iran hangs 16 in reprisal for Pakistan border killings

Read more: Iran hangs 16 in reprisal for Pakistan border killings - World - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/world/iran-hangs- ... z2x3dztyCU

Iran said it executed 16 "rebels" Saturday in reprisal after gunmen killed at least 14 border guards near the border with Pakistan, in a rugged area often rocked by violence.

The ambush happened overnight in the mountains of Sistan-Baluchestan, a province in southeastern Iran.

The province is home to a large community of minority Sunni Muslims, unlike the rest of Shiite-dominated Iran, where drug traffickers and Sunni militants operate.

"Fourteen border guards were killed during armed clashes in the region of Saravan, and five others were wounded," the official IRNA news agency said, citing what it called an informed source.

The unnamed source identified the gunmen as "bandits or rebels opposed to the Islamic republic".

But Deputy Interior Minister Ali Abdollahi said the guards were killed in an ambush set by Iranians who were "members of hostile groups".

"Three soldiers have been taken hostage and taken to the other side of the border in Pakistan," he said, adding Iran would "take measures to secure their release".

In retaliation for the attack, the Iranian authorities said they hanged 16 "rebels" held at a prison in the region.

"Sixteen rebels linked to groups hostile to the regime were hanged this morning in the prison of Zahedan in response to the death of border guards in Saravan," Mohammad Marzieh, attorney general of Sistan-Baluchestan, was quoted as saying by Fars news agency.

Abdollah said "we warned the rebel groups that any attack targeting civilians or members of the security forces would not go unanswered".

He also called on the Pakistani government to "take measures to control the border more seriously".

The region has seen bloody clashes during the past few years.

Officials say more than 4,000 police officers and soldiers have been killed there in three decades of fighting with drug traffickers.

Iran is a major transit route for drugs that originate in Afghanistan and are trafficked across its territory, much of them bound for Western countries.

People smugglers also use the route to traffick illegal immigrants to Europe, via Iran and Turkey.

Officials say Iran has spent millions of dollars to build a "wall" along lengthy stretches of its 1,700-kilometre (1,050-mile) eastern border with Afghanistan and Pakistan in a bid to stop the trafficking.

Work on the barrier began in the 1990s and is expected to be completed before the end of next year.

The Islamic republic says it is fighting a deadly war against drug traffickers who make up half of its prison population.

But Sunni militant group Jundallah (Soldiers of God) has also launched attacks on civilians and officials in Sistan-Baluchestan, including a December 2010 suicide bombing in the city of Shabahar that killed 39 people.

The Iranian authorities hanged 11 suspected members of Jundallah at Zahedan prison in December 2010 in response to the deadly bombing of the Shiite mourning procession in Shabahar.

Jundallah, whose leader Abdolmalek Rigi was hanged in June 2010, has been waging a deadly insurgency in southeastern Iran for almost a decade.

The group says it is fighting for the rights of the ethnic Sunni Baluchis who make up a significant part of the province's population.

Read more: Iran hangs 16 in reprisal for Pakistan border killings - World - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/world/iran-hangs- ... z2x3eBwPIs

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... -protector
Saudi Arabia’s Pilgrimage to Pakistan

Saudi Arabia also invested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, the so-called Sunni Bomb, by directly financing the research of A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani effort. The Kingdom’s hope of directly benefiting from Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities was blocked in 2003, when the US discovered the prospect of a transfer of knowledge and more.

Moreover, the forces that the Pakistan has sent to the Kingdom over the years have been perceived as generally loyal. Although up to 30% of the Pakistani army are Shia, the Saudis will only accept Sunni soldiers, and Pakistan has happily provided them as mercenaries, sent on rotation and treated as guest workers.

Part of the Saudi plan today is to use Pakistanis as the backbone for a new Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) joint military force. Pakistani forces under Saudi command were used in operations to quell Shia uprisings in Bahrain in 2011, and the Saudis now want a standby force ready to put down Islamist and Shia provocations whenever and wherever they may appear in the Gulf. In the event of an existential threat in the region, in particular a confrontation with Iran, Pakistan would offer the Kingdom a form of deadly protection denied it by the West.


So to what extent can Pakistan really enhance Saudi Arabia’s security, particularly in a war against Iran? Pakistan is badly fractured, with domestic terrorism running rampant. Its military lacks the capacity to intervene in Saudi Arabia’s defense while maintaining not only domestic security, but also readiness for war against India (an obsession of Pakistani generals).

Moreover, Pakistan’s substantial Shia population might join the ranks of the violently disaffected if the military backed the Saudis in a sectarian war. And the Pakistan People’s Party, now in opposition but still a powerful domestic force, shares interests with Iran.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... OiDOi0E.99

People have short memories or perhaps Shias and sunnis have reconciled now in the face of bigger and common threat. There used to be riot between Shias and Sunnis in India on the eve of Muharram when Tazia procession was undertaken by Shias.

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

In the 20th century, beginning in 1906, Azadari became a focus of communal tension in Lucknow. In 1977, after riots broke out for the fourth time since 1968, the government of Uttar Pradesh banned the Azadari processions. Shia leaders protested the ban, and many Shia Muslims courted arrest by defying the ban each year.

In 1997 a hunger strike was launched to protest the Azadari ban. In April three Shia youths committed self-immolation and died.

Book by Ashagar Ali Engineer mentione this

A group of militant sunnis hiding in a sunni mosque nearby started pelting stones........and a riot started

Another noteworthy mention on Shia-Sunni riot in India

“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”

― Omar Khayyam, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

the above quote by the greatest poet of persia, is apt..

Sunni Shia conflict is political as Islam had learnt from other religions and planned against sects.. Sunni's from arabia were crazy fanatics starved and savage because of the terrain they inhabited.. while Iran was and IS still a beautiful Garden..most of the beauty and architecture of Islam is inspired and mostly authored by persia and persians. the Sunnis were a ragged savage crew that could bring down cities but not build much.. so the management of their empire naturally fell to persian hands.. Shia leaders were denied a place and cast out by the followers of the prophet..and this led to the persian and other "civilized" muslims to assert their identity and refuse subservience to predominantly arab sunni's by the sect of Shia'ism.. Shias are smarter and more civilized , proud and self reliant..as the US has found out..strengthening shia's will mean world peace and tolerance.. Sunni's will mean bowing 20 times a day to them if they find the numbers.. choice is easy .

As long as it is between two communities and on a religious issue ( read the history of difference and why it arose) it is communal riot as defined in India. And all communal riots have their origin on desire to dominate and therefore in essence political as well. So one could say that all coomunal riots are political but not all political riots are communal.

Shiv ji: The entity playing this game quite well is China. The following is a little dated, but provides an idea.

The aforesaid realities of Beijing’s Iran dilemma provide a coherent picture in-so-far as two opposing, however equally buttressing facts are concerned. Firstly, Beijing aims to project itself as a dependable stakeholder on the international stage. Upholding the debate against nuclear proliferation provides the perfect platform to do so—visible when China, time and again voted for punitive UN resolutions against Iran. Nevertheless, on the other hand, in its own limited way, China has managed to provide a sense of reprieve to Iran by firstly denouncing Washington and the EU for imposing their individual sanctions against Tehran and also consistently resisting any proposal that would in turn prove detrimental vis-à-vis its energy and economic ties with Iran.

Beijing continues to struggle in the complex oscillation between its desire for an escalating demand of Iranian oil and natural gas and an aspiration to become a decisive focal point in the sphere of global diplomacy.

The adage "Indians lack strategic thinking" needs to be proven wrong. The entire muslim land mass of West Asia is our neighborhood and cannot be ignored and shall play a role in our quest for geo-political power. Benign neglect based on fear or contempt or irreconcilable ideological differences should not stop us from understanding what would best serve Indian interests, in its multiple dimensions, in the short, medium and long terms. Dismissing this region, as people with crazy ideas and they are like that onlee arguments and to be avoided as they are "irrational" is a cop out. By this extension, anyone who does not share my values and principles and does not fit my view of reason, as I see it is "irrational". This is not the way out and if the opponent feels this way, it is their weakness to be exploited for our benefit.

A couple of demographic aspects. Although the Sunni populations far exceed Shias globally, they are about equal in the middle east proper, with a majority of these energy resources vested in the Shia areas. It is only after you add the sub continent and south east Asia, do these Sunni numbers explode.

Recognizing the above fact, just like you claim there is method to your madness, I believe there is method to the seeming madness of the western states too, who have most successfully exploited this rift, ever since the great game changed to oil in the 1930's. Israel too exploits these rifts to open space for its own plays. This rift between these two sects along with other rifts of the region can be exploited to serve Indian interests in the areas of energy, social, trade, labor, security, political and military to serve the overall geopolitical interest.

Would request that you continue to focus on the various dimensions of the rift and its geo-political implications for India rather than allowing the thread to drift in to islamism in general (I know easy for me to ask)

ShauryaT wrote: Would request that you continue to focus on the various dimensions of the rift and its geo-political implications for India rather than allowing the thread to drift in to islamism in general (I know easy for me to ask)

No this is correct. BRF was at the forefront of exposing Islamism but after such discussions became mainstream we sort of lost track. Islamism is the big picture. sunni-shia strife is part of the the fine detail. Sinking into discussions of Islamism in general is useless unless it is relevant to sunni-shia relations.

Sunni-shia relations actually touch upon attitudes in Islamic society that are applied to non Muslims as well. I am particularly interested in seeing how and where they have managed to remain in peace and why Saudi Sunis feel so insecure about shias.

What fascinates me greatly is the sort of "magic" that Islamic societies have achieved in which they all claim to be equal and to believe in exactly the same things. But over time you find that it is a big lie - a lie that is repeated every day so that everyone believes it, but what actually happens is completely different. Another notable feature is that after a stage there is no mechanism for solving certain differences of opinion without passing a death sentence on somebody. Neither shia nor sunnis seem to enjoy the civility to talk without killing. I would really like to understand the detail - for example what does a sunni cleric say when he calls shias dogs and demands that they need to be killed.

We have discussed time and again how the call to kill is translated into action while the inciter washes his hands off with standard excuses and rationalizations. That is the method of Islamism that we have rehashed here a thousand times. But what is the sunni call to kill a shia? What is the shia call to kill a sunni?

A book review.
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future

Have those seeking to make sense of Middle Eastern politics by concentrating on radical Islam neglected the long-lived intra-Islamic confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites? If so, this book offers compelling corrective reading. Nasr provides a succinct summary of Shiite religious precepts and practices and of how Sunnism differs from Shiism, theologically and sociologically. He identifies and locates the different Shiite communities and then, with a good mix of broad-brush interpretative history and anecdotal detail, sketches the history of Sunni-Shiite confrontation from Lebanon to South Asia, making a strong case for the depth of this divide. At the same time, he does not suggest some sort of incipient Shiite International -- the important differences among Shiite communities and the limits of transnational Shiite political loyalties are clear. Still, the thrust of this broad-ranging and detailed, but still eminently readable, account is that the recent political gains of the Shiites may be ushering in a major, perhaps even tectonic, shift in the larger Middle Eastern political landscape.

Egypt: The Third Phase of the Arab Revolutions

The Shiite-Sunni "clash of civilizations"

But we must remember that there were three other Arab revolutions that followed different paths. And that was due to the extreme proximity of the countries where they took place to what constitutes the most important international issue in the Arab world: the ability to export daily a quarter of the oil consumed on the planet.

• Bahrain, where the revolution was aborted one month after it broke out on 14 March 2011, with the intervention of the forces of the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia - on the grounds that since the population of Bahrain is predominantly Shiite, a victorious revolution would turn the country into Iran's step stool.

• In Yemen, southern neighbor of Saudi Arabia, with its population of 25 million people in a state of absolute poverty and representing a major security risk for oil producers. The Yemeni revolution was in fact stifled by petrodollars and the game of tribal division.

• Finally, the Syrian revolution resulted in civil war. Besides pitting civil society against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, it opposes the Sunni majority of the population against a coalition of minorities (Alawites, Christians, Druze, Kurds, etc., as well as some Sunni) around a fault line that crosses the Middle East and of which Syria has become the epicenter.

This is the Shiite-Sunni "clash of civilizations" opposing on the one hand a "Shiite crescent" led by Tehran and supported by Maliki's Iraq, Assad's Syria, the Hezbollah and the Shiite populations on the Arab side of the Gulf. On the other side, a Sunni front, whose principal leaders were Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Egypt. But today, with the explosion of Egypt, the largest Sunni country in the Middle East with over 90 million inhabitants, the Sunni bloc itself is deeply split. On the side of the Egyptian interim government - which took power after mass protests on 30 June by ousting the elected president of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, on 3 July - and its strongman General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, there is Saudi Arabia; the king himself, a very rare occurrence, made a public statement in support of the Egyptian army "in its fight against terrorism."

There are also the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan. In the other camp with the Muslim Brotherhood, we find the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, very much in the forefront in the defense of his fellow Islamists in Cairo; and Qatar, which was, in the time of the former Emir, the Brotherhood's main sponsor in Syria, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere, and gave the movement its main media platform by putting the TV channel Al Jazeera at the service of its conquest of power. Qatar's support remains real for structural reasons, but today it is less explicit since the new Emir, Sheikh Tamim, took power. The position of his father, who was sponsoring both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Paris Saint-Germain Football Club, Muslim associations in the French suburbs and the most radical Syrian Islamists, had created an untenable situation internationally for Qatar, a small country that is certainly wealthy but has only 200,000 citizens and cannot afford to make enemies.

shiv wrote:What fascinates me greatly is the sort of "magic" that Islamic societies have achieved in which they all claim to be equal and to believe in exactly the same things. But over time you find that it is a big lie - a lie that is repeated every day so that everyone believes it, but what actually happens is completely different. Another notable feature is that after a stage there is no mechanism for solving certain differences of opinion without passing a death sentence on somebody. Neither shia nor sunnis seem to enjoy the civility to talk without killing. I would really like to understand the detail - for example what does a sunni cleric say when he calls shias dogs and demands that they need to be killed.

shiv ji, I've been thinking about this - both, from within the Indic context and also in the context of non-Indic civilizations and their dynamics. I blogged this recently:

Natural merger of Classical & Sacred

In this, I divided certain tendencies into "Sacred" (emotive) and "Classical" (intellectual) motivations and their characteristics. I believe Islamism is heavily imbalanced in favour of the "sacred", while it had only cannibalized and used older classical civilizational memes (in a very reductionist manner, like older pre-reformation Christianity) to serve as a "carrier". Here one can go down the characteristics of the "sacred" (AFAIU):



Because of this obsessive sacral bias, there is a predominance of certain characteristics in its individual and social dynamics. E.g., under "Attitude to Change vs. Fixity" -

- Uses a deterministic model, which strives to root out uncertainty.
- Emphasis on continuity of sanskriti – the cultural products of the civilizing process.
- Seeks permanence in escape and transcendence from temporal change.

In this scheme, this Qur'anic command assumes extraordinary importance: "al Amr bil Ma'aroof wal nahi an'il Munkar" - "To enjoin what is good and to forbid what is wrong". But "good" and "wrong" are values that have no real empirical basis here, except as handed down to "believers". So the Shi'a considers it his godly duty to curse and condemn the other 3 Caliphs and several Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who were politically in a different faction from 'Ali (rs) - because the Shi'a needs to forbid to his fellow Muslims and human beings the wrong guidance they may be getting from those people who are not chosen by the Lord. On the other hand, the Sunni needs to forbid and condemn this blasphemy of the Shi'as, who dare to blaspheme the holy Companions who descended onto this Earth to participate in Muhammad's "leela", and are all sacrosanct despite any apparent human imperfections. Their apparent imperfections must be seen in terms of various paths to tawheed (cognition of Oneness) and attraction to Muhammad (who is perfect), and so every Muslim chooses to emulate one or the other holy Companion based on something that draws him to that Companion's character, something he can identify with. By denigrating large sections of Companions and questioning several hadiths, the Shi'as are spreading mischief and doubt among the Muslim ummah and its perfect system for approaching tawheed. Therefore, the Shi'a and the Sunni are locked in mutual condemnation, one reacting to the other. The only time this death-spiral pauses and transforms into unity is when the non-Muslim casts a shadow, for the non-Muslim threatens things that both Shi'a and Sunni consider even more sacred than their mutual differences. Therefore, this is a tribalistic mindset, where blood and faction are closely related.

Well - their prophet said the Quran is the last word of god.. so anyone who followed had no authority on the faith except as an interpreter.. the differences are purely political , asserting a distinct identity..

its irrelevant to what we do - india should simply work without bothering about shia or sunni ..but where possible Shia's r preferrable.. they r civilized and hence more peaceful than sunni's.. and perhaps have kinder hearts since they originate from plenty.. - not starved fanatics, the differences in shia sunni stem from historical evolution over centuries.. long before they knew Islam..

Please watch this cartoon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvnEBX9aedY

In the cartoon, there is a sequence of events - one action leads to a certain reaction that leads to a third and so on in a series of events that finally end in a violent act.

I am certain that the trigger event starts with a preacher on TV or on the pulpit. Assuming he is sunni, it is likely that he makes some accusations against shias or a particular shia. I am guessing that such accusations would revolve around what Agnimitra has mentioned in his post. It is likely that he provokes anger and indignation among his congregation. Maybe this occurs several times - over the span of some weeks or months.

At some later stage, a violent act occurs where a suicide bomber kills some shias and the suicide bomber (or gun wielding killer group) can be traced back to a congregation who follow a particular preacher.

The questions for which I would like answers are
1. Typically are such acts triggered by just one preacher or are there many who act in tandem to instigate
2. There has to be a separate mechanism to acquire arms and explosives and recruit volunteers to perform the final act of assassination - so that funding could either be from rich people in the congregation donating money to the preachers followers for the cause, or it could be a complete separate set up - a separate funding and training unit who simply take their religious hate cues from a particular preacher.

Whatever the exact sequence of events from the acts of inciting to the act of murder, the exact link between inciter and murderer is blurred so the preacher himself can get away and be declared innocent.

But all this can only happen in an environment in which arms, arms and explosive training and the trainers to do that (presumably from some regular armed forces) exist along with the place or real estate to conduct such training. The existence of such a set up also indicates that there is no powerful overarching national government that has the power to control who has arms and who does not, or the means to control those arms. The latter is true for Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Afghanistan.

So what is visible to us is the inciting agency - maybe a preacher on TV who escapes blame. There is an implementer - a terrorist or a suicide bomber. There is also a weak government. But in between the private funders and the trainers remain shadowy figures who are real people, but completely unknown, whose activities serve to shield the preacher and faith from accusation. The implementer is always a person "angry at injustice" or "misguided youth", but the system survives. And it survives in an environment that has preacher, weak government and easy availability of arms and bombs.

There are several points here at which an "external agency" such as a foreign power can exert influence. The simplest is funds. The next is an infusion of arms and explosives. The more the uncontrolled entry points and the less the government control of such activities, the easier it is to push in arms and explosives. If the country already has a surfeit of arms and explosives, there is no need to smuggle in anything. A third point is government destabilization. A weak puppet government will allow the existence of armed groups to train and fund terrorists.

Technically, none of this can occur without the preacher of hate. but the preacher of hate is virtually powerless without the system that operates by using his hate speeches as commands to fund, train terrorists and implement violence.

Once violence takes hold and becomes endemic, it is difficult to reverse it. The government has to become very strong - perhaps even brutal. Saddam had a brutal government - but there was little internal shia-sunni strife. Gulf sultanates are brutal and act via mercenaries and western support, The loss of western support is causing them to rely on Pakistan for men and material.

Once violence becomes chronic I do not see any way in which it can be stopped. I think Pakistan is a test case - need to see if the violence is checked by any agency. I doubt if that can happen.

Accident theory as summarized by Heinrich's triangle says for 1 major accident, there are 29 minor accidents and 300 near misses in industrial setting where no one wants to create an accident. I suspect the ratios are much worse in case of sectarian conflict where dominance and primacy are driving the issue. Am sure Indian Police has better statistics.

Saudi Prince Muqrin named successor to present King - ToI

US Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks appear to show Muqrin as sharing Abdullahs's views that Western countries should take a strong line against Shi'ite Iran, which they see as pursuing an expansionist agenda in Arab countries.

In a 2009 cable, he was quoted telling diplomats that the Shi'ite crescent where the Muslim sect has traditionally held sway was in danger of "becoming a full moon" thanks to Iranian support for its coreligionists at the expense of Sunnis.

Agnimitra wrote: In this scheme, this Qur'anic command assumes extraordinary importance: "al Amr bil Ma'aroof wal nahi an'il Munkar" - "To enjoin what is good and to forbid what is wrong". But "good" and "wrong" are values that have no real empirical basis here, except as handed down to "believers". So the Shi'a considers it his godly duty to curse and condemn the other 3 Caliphs and several Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who were politically in a different faction from 'Ali (rs) - because the Shi'a needs to forbid to his fellow Muslims and human beings the wrong guidance they may be getting from those people who are not chosen by the Lord. On the other hand, the Sunni needs to forbid and condemn this blasphemy of the Shi'as, who dare to blaspheme the holy Companions who descended onto this Earth to participate in Muhammad's "leela", and are all sacrosanct despite any apparent human imperfections. Their apparent imperfections must be seen in terms of various paths to tawheed (cognition of Oneness) and attraction to Muhammad (who is perfect), and so every Muslim chooses to emulate one or the other holy Companion based on something that draws him to that Companion's character, something he can identify with. By denigrating large sections of Companions and questioning several hadiths, the Shi'as are spreading mischief and doubt among the Muslim ummah and its perfect system for approaching tawheed. Therefore, the Shi'a and the Sunni are locked in mutual condemnation, one reacting to the other. The only time this death-spiral pauses and transforms into unity is when the non-Muslim casts a shadow, for the non-Muslim threatens things that both Shi'a and Sunni consider even more sacred than their mutual differences. Therefore, this is a tribalistic mindset, where blood and faction are closely related.

This reminds me so much about the mechanism of blood clotting which is a cascade of chemical events that "conspires" to stop the flow and complete leakage of all blood from the body after a small injury. There are two separate types of trigger events that initiate the process of clotting - but finally both pathways connect up into one final, common mechanism by which blood can form a clot.

It seems to me that the first event in shia-sunni strife is the condemnation and declaration of the other party as "the other". In the same manner a kafir can be declared as "the other" Once someone is declared as "the other" then there are firmly encoded rules about how "the other" should be dealt with.

This is where things get a bit fuzzy. Dealing with "the other" is advertised as being very just and very benevolent. But the murders and deaths suggest that at some point, dealing with "the other" is translated into killing. Killing is a one way process that cannot be reversed. There seems to be a tacit cultural understanding and acknowledgement that killing is a good solution under some circumstances. Maybe the killing of opponents was an effective ploy when populations were small and distances large. But killing "the other" is a process that leads to endless enmity and a perpetual need to get an eye for an eye.

To my knowledge, there seems to be no innate understanding or societal acknowledgement in rival suni and shia societies that it is difficult or impossible to kill all shias or all sunnis. Societal recognition of a sunni problem or a shia problem seem to extend only so far as to agree that killing of a minority who are nearby seem to be a solution. But this solution lacks the insight that all sunnis and shias cannot be killed and that provoking the killing cycle only legitimizes and institutionalizes killing "the other" leading to a perpetual cycle of revenge violence.

Gandhi effectively recognized this and dealt with it in India in his own way. Is there no mechanism within Islamic doctrine to acknowledge that killing the other cannot be a solution at least in certain circumstances?

Yesterday I was looking at Wiki on Pakistan Iran relations which have apparently generally been excellent. Between Iran and Pakistan there are approximately and equal number (130 million each) of shias and sunnis.How is it possible for one group to eliminate the other? How is elimination by killing considered to be a solution that can work?

shiv wrote:
I am certain that the trigger event starts with a preacher on TV or on the pulpit. Assuming he is sunni, it is likely that he makes some accusations against shias or a particular shia. I am guessing that such accusations would revolve around what Agnimitra has mentioned in his post. It is likely that he provokes anger and indignation among his congregation. Maybe this occurs several times - over the span of some weeks or months.

Technically, none of this can occur without the preacher of hate. but the preacher of hate is virtually powerless without the system that operates by using his hate speeches as commands to fund, train terrorists and implement violence.

Why and when does a preacher of any ideology preach 'hate'?
This, goes to a deeper question: why and when does an ideology preach 'hate'?

What is the job of a preacher?
A preacher's job is to preach something...anything, as long as people listen to him. If the people don't listen to him, then the preacher would find it difficult to sustain himself. So, preacher has to capture the attention of his audience.

A job that requires someone to say something regularly and hold people's attention is not easy. Generally, people will get bored of listening to any topic after sometime.

Generally, there seem to be two ways of holding people's attention without inviting boredom:
a) can be held by engaging them in topics of intellectual/creative pursuits. Debates, logic, music, dance,...etc. or
b) by raising the spectre of 'us vs them' or 'I vs you'.

Intellectual pursuits would mean anything that engages the intellect in a constructive manner. Generally, the questions about the world around are taken up and one grapples to find answers to them. This slowly goes towards existential questions like:
'Who created the world?'
'Why was world created?'
'How was world created?'
These sort of questions lead to the development of philosophy/science. This engages the people intellectually and a preacher can talk about these topics to his audience quite regularly because there is a lot of scope/depth in these subjects that can be explored.

Creative pursuits would mean arts like music, dance, acting, poetry, writing, acting, even fighting(or martial arts), games...etc. These activities also have lot of scope for exploration that a preacher can use to preach to his audience without boring them.

Both creative and intellectual pursuits have a common thing: In these activities, a person is competing with self. It is a sort of self-improvement mechanism. In a way, the activity becomes just a tool or method to improve oneself.

One finds that Bhaarathiya religions have a huge amount of philosophy and arts department. This allows the practitioners and preachers to engage themselves in lots of activity that involves philosophy or arts without boring themselves. Getting bored seems to be the biggest worry in the world. Mind craves some activity...any activity. An empty mind is a devil's workshop. If the mind is not constructively engaged, it will turn to destructive activities/thoughts. The same applies to ideologies.

Ideologies that lack philosophy and arts component provide a challenge to the preacher to come up with something engaging to his audience. This is a very difficult job. Almost any topic becomes stale after it is repeated sometimes. But a preacher has to live all his life preaching something or the other! If there are no preachers, then the ideology will die.

So, what can the preacher do?
Well, preacher turns to the only other topic that never fails to engage people: 'us vs them'.

There are several variations of 'us vs them' theme that preachers of different ideologies can indulge in. Eg: men vs women, boys vs men, infants vs old men, animals vs humans, liberal vs conservative, traditional vs modern, faithful vs unfaithful, ...etc.

Regardless of that particular variation, the larger them is always 'us vs them'. Obviously, in such a theme, the 'other' is dissed and cussed. This is why 'hate' gets propagated. Basically, this means that even if the present 'enemy' or 'other' is removed, the preacher/ideology will find some other 'enemy' or 'other' to stay relevant. The preacher or ideology needs the 'other' because they depend on 'us vs them' theme to stay relevant to their audience.

That means any ideology that wants to avoid ending up in such negative 'us vs them' theme should develop intellectual/philosophical or artistic/creative components within their ideology.

But, there is a negative in this aspect for the preacher or the ideology:
If the people start seriously practicing intellectual/philosophical or artistic/creative components, then they are less likely to listen the regular preaches of the preacher. As I said, people are likely to look at their own intellectual/artistic pursuits as a self-improvement mechanism. So, they will give greater importance to it and the importance of the preacher(or even the ideology) gets reduced. Why would a preacher/ideology want to encourage a component that is likely to reduce his/her own power?

Another danger for the preacher or ideology from intellectual/artistic pursuits is that those pursuits can be decoupled from the ideology and pursued independently by the people. If people start following intellectual/artistic pursuits after decoupling it from the ideology, the ideology becomes completely sidelined and faced extinction.

But, generally, the reason these intellectual/artistic components are not developed by all ideologies is because it is not easy to develop them. It requires a certain amount of talent, dedication, skill, technology, money, free-time, ...etc. And its not possible for a single person to do that suddenly. Its built over time gradually or passed down from previous generations. For both such activities to occur, there needs to be a relative peace or stability. If there is a lot of instability in the society, then it is unlikely for such components to develop.

People who practice intellectual/artistic pursuits would need patrons. That means some people would need to be ready to give money to these people. That means there needs to be respect for intellectuals or artists. Only in an environment where the intellectuals/artists are respected, can the intellectual/artistic pursuits possible.

Once an ideology starts on the theme of 'us vs them', the general trajectory will be
1) asking for the 'them' not to hurt 'us'. Victim - seige.
2) asking for 'us' to be equal to 'them'.
3) asking for 'us' to subjugate 'them'.
4) asking for 'us' to eliminate 'them'.

One may ask: why the progression? Any thought or activity is like a drug. It requires more frequency and intensity every successive time to get the same high that was provided the last time. That first time a preacher talks about 'us vs them' in a victim mode, he may get lots appreciation from the people. But, after sometime, it becomes stale. Then, he has to raise the stakes. In a way, preacher himself may get bored if he keeps repeating the same thing. The audience will anyway get bored. So, the progression. After one progression, then the preacher has to find some other 'them' and again repeat the cycle.

This is the general pattern of the thinking. Some other factors that play a role are:
a) power equations between 'us and 'them'.
b) if 'we' need 'them' for some purpose.
c) general empathy.

a) power equations between 'us' and them':
Depending on who is powerful and how much powerful, the ideology/preacher preaches 'us vs them'. If 'they' are more powerful then 'us', then the preacher would ask for equal equal. If even that is not possible, the the preacher would ask for 'don't hurt us'. If 'we' are more powerful then 'them', then the preacher would ask for subjugation or elimination.

b) if 'we' need 'them', then the preacher will ask for subjugation but will avoid asking for elimination. Preacher may also ask for eliminating the need, so that the 'they' can be eliminated.

c) general empathy.
All creatures(particularly human beings) have a general empathy towards all creatures. When any creature is in pain/suffering, others also find it painful. This general empathy is caused because people inherently know that all creatures are more or less similar. The thinking is,"just as I feel pain/fear, the others will also feel pain/fear." This thinking leads to sympathizing or empathizing with the other. When one feels that the other is also similar to oneself, then one is unlikely to 'hate' the other because no one hates oneself. This thinking acts against 'us vs them' theme. Since it acts against the 'us vs theme' and if 'us vs them' is the only stock in the trade for a particular preacher/ideology, then that particular preacher/ideology will not take kindly to this general empathy. That particular preacher/ideology will try to kill general empathy in their audience, so that 'us vs them' is no opposed on that count.

X-post. While not related to Shia Sunni relation directly per se. It is worth watching this debate in full to understand the TTP's Islamist mindset...also watch the TTP Maulana's injunctions on Ghazwa e Hind at the end of the video.

Calls Qaid-e-Azam Qaddu-e-Azam. He was an Ismaili and not a muslim. Ali, Hussain etc. are names of Shias and hence a worth of cutletting. PBUH himself ordered killing of women who spoke against him and this is part of Shariat...someone should play this tape in front of Islamist apologists. Calls America as Pakistan;s Uncle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TD8PA4IZao

How this clash affects India and the region.
Saudi grant kills Iran-Pakistan pipeline

Saudi Arabia did what the US could not do to keep Pakistan away from a $7.5-billion gas pipeline project with Iran. In a tit-for-tat deal, Saudi Arabia might have persuaded Islamabad to cancel the Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline project, which is vital to end energy shortages that are crippling Pakistan's economy.

Pakistan's oil minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, after receiving funds from Saudi Arabia last month, reportedly said work on the pipeline was not possible because of sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union on Iran over its nuclear

Perfumes of Arabia by Priya Ravichandran

Saudi Arabia has a history of funding organisations that have served as a front for organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups responsible for the majority of the attacks against minorities and against India. The donation also comes from a Saudi Arabia that is determined to maintain its relevance at a time when the US-Iran relations are thawing.

Pakistan in turn has given military support to both Saudi Arabia and more recently, to Bahrain to quell a Shia uprising. Retired and serving military personnel have been used in both the countries for internal security issues. The kingdom has also recently been promised nuclear technology and security arsenal from Pakistan. The fact that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sunni minority rulers in Bahrain are determined to make the fullest use of Pakistan’s most successful export has to be obvious. The strenghth of the alliance and its impact in an increasingly volatile region, remains to be seen.

The worry that it will grow into a regional conflict pitting Sunnis against Shias is high. The greater fear is that the violence will push the condition of the besieged minorities even further with a spillover into regional countries. There have already been reports of Al Qaeda militants from Pakistan seeking support and a base in Syria. A Pakistan waiting in the wings, ready to offer more support militarily and more men fueled in the ideologies that inflame sectarian violence has become increasingly real.

An escalation of the sectarian violence can already be seen in the sudden explosion of violence after years of conflict that had been building on the Iranian-Pakistan border. Last week after Pakistani gunmen killed 14 Iranian border guards, Iran retaliated by killing 16 Pakistani rebels and has threatened to send troops into Pakistan to recover any hostages. To dissociate this event from Saudi Arabia’s anonymous donation and the Saudi displeasure with the US would be foolish. A greater threat to the lives and livelihoods of minorities living in Pakistan cannot be ruled out under the circumstances. The Pakistani government has not shown any indications of reconciliation with the minorities or acted seriously against the perpetrators. The push for talks with the TTP and the Taliban and the increased veering towards more Sharia based laws does not offer any hope either. The deals with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain might just be the final push. All the perfumes of Arabia have sweetened Pakistan’s hand in this case.

India will suffer the results of the conflict and the country’s crack down on minorities. The greater influx of refugees seeking shelter and aid, cross border terrorism and the threat to our own national security will increase. More attention needs to be paid to the issue and to the long drawn war in Syria. India also needs to seriously take stock of its own internal security and border security. India needs to use its leverage in the region and take the initiative to defuse the conflict now. Any further delay could only result in further donations and an unstable subcontinent.

Saudi Arabia’s Pilgrimage to Pakistan

Over the last few years, Saudi Arabia has become increasingly estranged from its long-time protector, the United States. It viewed America’s backing for Hosni Mubarak’s fall from power in Egypt – and its subsequent acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood government – as a betrayal. Then came US President Barack Obama’s refusal to enforce his “red line” in Syria, after President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed poison gas on its opponents. But the final straw was America’s support for the recent interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphSaudi Arabia’s mounting distrust of the US matters, because whenever the Kingdom has felt an existential threat – and it regards Iran’s regional ambitions as such a threat – it has relied on an external power to protect it. But if it can no longer rely on the US, where can the Kingdom turn for sufficient military muscle?
CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphThe answer seems to be Pakistan, a country that the rest of the world views as on the verge of becoming a failed state.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphPakistan has previously served the Kingdom’s interests by sending military and security assistance during times of stress. Saudi Arabia received some 30,000 Pakistani soldiers in 1979, at the time of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. And these troops remained in the Kingdom until the mid-1980’s.

The Saudis also employed thousands of Pakistani soldiers during the 1991 Gulf War. And, at the beginning of 2014, Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal and Crown Prince Salman visited Islamabad to renew the two countries’ military agreements on joint arms production. The visit was also intended to lay the groundwork to bring 30,000 Pakistani soldiers and military advisers to the Kingdom.

The Saudi rulers view Pakistan as one of three regional powers, along with Iran and Turkey, capable of having a decisive impact on the Middle East. An alliance with Shia Iran – the Kingdom’s supreme ideological enemy, and one with regional hegemonic ambitions – is out of the question. Turkey, for its part, is regarded as a competitor for the mantle of Sunni Muslim leadership – a position long held by the Ottoman Empire.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphThe frequent description of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as harboring “neo-Ottoman” ambitions for his country clearly implicates this rivalry. It was the Ottomans who brought down two historical Saudi/Wahhabi states. The first such state (1745-1818) was destroyed by Egypt’s Mehmet Ali with Ottoman support; the second (1824-1891) was also defeated by the Ottomans.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphBy contrast, the Kingdom has no problematic history with Pakistan. On the contrary, the Saudis have bankrolled the Pakistani state, and proved a generous host to its current prime minister, Mian Nawaz Sharif, during his long exile following the military coup that toppled his government in 1999.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraphIndeed, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in Pakistan since the early years of its independence. Given that Pakistan was founded in 1947 on a religious basis, it is not surprising that its leaders sought support from the source of Islam, Mecca, then under Saudi rule. The Kingdom, in turn, exported its Wahhabi teachings to the “Land of the Pure,” ultimately fueling the Islamic extremism and sectarian violence of the Taliban and others.

Saudi Arabia also invested in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, the so-called Sunni Bomb, by directly financing the research of A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani effort. The Kingdom’s hope of directly benefiting from Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities was blocked in 2003, when the US discovered the prospect of a transfer of knowledge and more.

Moreover, the forces that the Pakistan has sent to the Kingdom over the years have been perceived as generally loyal. Although up to 30% of the Pakistani army are Shia, the Saudis will only accept Sunni soldiers, and Pakistan has happily provided them as mercenaries, sent on rotation and treated as guest workers.

Part of the Saudi plan today is to use Pakistanis as the backbone for a new Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) joint military force. Pakistani forces under Saudi command were used in operations to quell Shia uprisings in Bahrain in 2011, and the Saudis now want a standby force ready to put down Islamist and Shia provocations whenever and wherever they may appear in the Gulf. In the event of an existential threat in the region, in particular a confrontation with Iran, Pakistan would offer the Kingdom a form of deadly protection denied it by the West.

So to what extent can Pakistan really enhance Saudi Arabia’s security, particularly in a war against Iran? Pakistan is badly fractured, with domestic terrorism running rampant. Its military lacks the capacity to intervene in Saudi Arabia’s defense while maintaining not only domestic security, but also readiness for war against India (an obsession of Pakistani generals).

Moreover, Pakistan’s substantial Shia population might join the ranks of the violently disaffected if the military backed the Saudis in a sectarian war. And the Pakistan People’s Party, now in opposition but still a powerful domestic force, shares interests with Iran.

So, although the strategic value of closer military ties with Pakistan seems highly questionable, Saudi Arabia has little choice. The GCC is in fact disintegrating, following Qatar’s ouster for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Oman’s voluntary departure from the group. That, together with the Kingdom’s deepening distrust of the US, is fueling a growing sense of isolation. Pakistan may not be anyone’s idea of an ally when facing an existential threat; for Saudi Arabia, however, it is an idea whose time has come.

While the Sunni-Shia cat fight is a 'global' issue the more relevant issue for India is the Ashraf-Ajlaf divide in India. The Ashrafs are less than 10% of Indian Muslims but dominate the discourse and siphon off 90% of the minority benefits in India. So lets deal with more urgent and nearby issues. Education and development will allow more of the Ajlafs Muslims to participate in the idea of India. Right now all they see is/hope for extreme poverty and low paying jobs which are pathway to extremism via riots.

ramana wrote:While the Sunni-Shia cat fight is a 'global' issue the more relevant issue for Indai is the Ashraf-Ajlaf divide in India. The Ashrafs are less than 10% of Indian Muslims but dominate the discourse and siphon off 90% of the minority benefits in India. So lets deal with more urgent and nearby issues. Education and development will allow more of the Ajlafs Muslims to participate in the idea of India. Right now all they see is/hope for extreme poverty and low paying jobs which are pathway to extremism via riots.

Not commenting on the divide as it is not the defining issue within the republic, the last sentence is a far more pressing one. One good thing to do for the IM is to pass laws for forcible integration of this community into the mainstream by way of equal rights to housing, employment, opportunity, loans, etc. Hindus will have to open their hearts and integrate. Federal and state governments should have some affirmative action programs targeted at Muslims and let them have a stake in the governance structures. Right now the percentage of IM in government organs is abysmal. The biggest integration is desired in education. Prefer scrapping article 29 and instead integrate muslim students in main stream. IM should let go of personal laws in favor of a common code.

Affirmative action on the basis of religion is a strict no go area. Preaching hindus to open their heart is one thing and to learn from history is another. Equality before Law and equal opportunity in employment etc are the basis on which this republic should run. That is what NaMo also says I presume and I believe is correct way to go. Let there be no talk of religion in governance, two child norm and monogamy for all and uniform civil code for citizens. That should build foundation for stronger India.

Attacks kill 16 people in Iraq

A series of attacks in Iraq, including a shooting at a security checkpoint and a suicide car bomb, killed 16 people and destroyed a bridge on Sunday, said officials.
...
The Iraq security forces have been a favorite target for Sunni insurgents who want to undermine the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. Violence has escalated in Iraq over the past year, with 2013 seeing the country's highest death toll since the worst of the country's sectarian bloodletting began to subside in 2007, according to the United Nations figures.

Some Indian observers have warned of a refugee influx from Pakistan and the Shia population of Pakistan could be the first lot.
Time for Shias to leave Pakistan

Some, not all, Shias have a choice. They can abandon the death traps in Quetta and Peshawar by relocating to the Shia majority areas in Karachi, Lahore, and other cities. A better option is to plead with the embassies in Islamabad for asylum for the Shia, especially the Hazara, youth.

Seeking asylum abroad may not win the approval of Pakistan’s superior courts, who have recently mocked those who held dual citizenship. However, it is better to be alive in exile than to be splattered on a wall in Pakistan.

X-post

The Kabila mindset of the Pakis coupled with indifference to their natural surroundings around them seems to be a common theme with the Wahabis as well and by extension a trait of the Sunni mindset in the middle east.

The Shias have holy places like Zainab's tomb, Karbala, and Mazar-e-Sharif where they remain vulnerable to attacks from the Wahabis. They cannot vacate these places are willing to take horrendous casualties to defend these places. This is viewed as a weakness by the Wahabis. In contrast Recall the news item a few years ago about the Wahabis razing the Prophet's home.

They have imbibed it in their mindset to remain a moving target and thus reduce their painpoints. They may learnt from past experiences like the destruction of the Ismailis by the Mongols and put them to good use.

This way their brand of islam will survive an attack even on their holiest places should it ever happen. There was a senator from Denver IIRC had threatened to nuke Mecca.

Watch for the geopolitical impact, underlying the politics of oil that will resurface the sunni-shia divisions. A division that can serve Indian interests.
Split Persists Between Washington and Riyadh

Last week's meeting between President Obama and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was meant to quell speculation that relations between the two long-standing allies had collapsed, says Brookings fellow F. Gregory Gause. But despite the assurances proffered by the Obama administration, serious differences over policy regarding Iran, Syria, and Egypt remain between the two countries, says Gause. On Iran, although Saudis voice support for the international negotiations to limit the country's nuclear program, they worry that Washington is not doing enough to limit Iran's growing influence in the region. They also believe that Washington should be doing more to buttress the anti-Assad forces in Syria and the military government in Egypt. "The United States and Saudis have some serious differences, and this meeting didn't solve them," he says.

This all about Obama's pivot to Asia which the neo-cons and the Wahabis abhor. As I had mentioned many years ago Obama's policies are the ones that favor India the most.

Please remind us again.

Paul wrote:This all about Obama's pivot to Asia which the neo-cons and the Wahabis abhor. As I had mentioned many years ago Obama's policies are the ones that favor India the most.

Paul: Please do post in an appropriate thread how so?

Please see my reply in Geo Political thread.

Four kidnapped Iranian border guards released in Pakistan

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l ... z2y339jS5b

TEHRAN -- Four Iranian border guards kidnapped two months ago by Sunni Muslim militants along the nation’s southeastern frontier with Pakistan have been released in Pakistan, Iranian news agencies reported Friday.A fifth kidnapped border guard was reported executed last month by his captors. His body has been handed over to Iranian authorities, according to media accounts.The case sparked outrage in Iran and inflamed tension between Iran and Pakistan, where the abducted guards were apparently held.Iranian officials accused Pakistan of lax security along the two nations' notoriously lawless frontier, long a hub for arms smugglers and drug traffickers. Tehran had suggested that it might send forces into Pakistan to free the captive guards.A massive social media campaign was launched in Iran on behalf of the five abductees.A Sunni Muslim militant faction, Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice) said it was responsible for the abductions and the execution of one of the guards.
The group has been active in the borderlands between predominantly Shiite Iran and Pakistan, home to a Sunni majority and Shiite minority. Iran calls Jaish al-Adl a terrorist organization and says it operates from sanctuaries in Pakistan’s Baluchistan region.Last October, the same group claimed responsibility for the killings of 14 Iranian border guards.The kidnappers had demanded the release of Sunni prisoners in Iran and Syria in exchange for the abducted guards’ freedom. There was no official word Friday on any prisoners being freed.The four kidnapped guards were handed over to Iranian representatives in Pakistan but had not yet returned to Iran, Iran’s official Press TV reported.

52 killed in Iraq violence
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetai ... ence-.html

Baghdad, April 3 (IANS) A total of 52 people were killed and 32 others wounded Thursday in violent attacks across Iraq, including 40 militants killed in a single battle with Iraqi forces, police said.

The deadliest incident occurred near Iraqi capital Baghdad when security forces fiercely clashed with gunmen who tried to storm a military base in Dwiyliba area outside the town of Yousifiyah, some 25 km south of Baghdad, Xinhua reported citing an interior ministry statement.

"Iraqi security forces confronted and foiled an attempt by Daash gang members to break into a military base," the statement said, referring to the Arabic first letters for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant group.

The battle resulted in the killing of 40 militants and one army officer, as well as the seizing of two heavy machine-guns, 15 rifles and five grenade launchers, according to the statement.

In Iraq's northern central province of Salahudin, three people were killed and 14 others wounded in a car bomb explosion near a popular restaurant in Tuz-Khurmato, some 90 km east of the provincial capital Tikrit, a provincial police source said.

In a separate incident, Jawdat Kadhim, a professor and assistant dean of Tikrit University, was wounded when unidentified gunmen attacked his car on a highway after he left the university in northern Tikrit, some 170 km north of Baghdad, sources said.

Earlier in the day, a leader of a local Al Qaeda militant group and three of his aides were killed during an operation by Iraqi security forces in Aiyn al-Jahash area, south of Mosul city, some 400 km north of Baghdad, a local police source said.

Near Baghdad, a civilian was killed and 11 others wounded when a car bomb ripped through the city of Mahmoudiyah, some 30 km south of the capital, a local police source said.

In Iraq's eastern province of Diyala, two policemen were killed and four others wounded when a roadside bomb struck their patrol near the town of Buhruz near the provincial capital city Baquba, a provincial police source said.

Separately, police found a male body in his 30s with bullet holes in his head and chest dumped outside a cemetery near Baquba, sources said.

Also in the province, a woman and her daughter were wounded in a bomb explosion at a marketplace in Baquba, the source added.

Iraq is witnessing its worst violence in recent years. According to the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, a total of 8,868 Iraqis, including 7,818 civilians and civilian police personnel, were killed in 2013, the highest annual death toll in years.

The "Daash" group is described below - a Sunni group. Iraq as you know is shia majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_St ... the_Levant

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام‎ ad-Dawla al-Islāmiyya fi al-'Irāq wa-sh-Shām), abbreviated as ISIL, is a group active in Iraq and Syria.[24] It was established in the early years of the Iraq War, and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004, becoming known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq". The group was composed of and supported by a variety of insurgent groups, including its predecessor organisation, the Mujahideen Shura Council, Al-Qaeda, Jaysh al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba, Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah, Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura, etc., and other clans whose population is of Sunni faith. It aimed to establish a caliphate in the Sunni majority populated regions of Iraq, later expanding this to include Syria.