Bharat Rakshak

Muslims all over the world are divided into two major sects, shias and sunnis. Wiki or a search using your uncle Gokul (aunt Kokila) will tell you what you need to know about differences between the two sects, but the differences started about 1400 years ago after the death of Mohammad the prophet of Islam. Shias constitute about 20% of the Muslims of the world but the Islamic world is not well known for either science or statistics - at least in the last 1000 years

Iraq (65%) and Iran (95%) have the two largest shia populations and form a sort of shia island between a sunni world with Lebanon sitiated west of Iraq and Shitistan (Pakistan) to the east of Iran. Bahrain and Azerbaijan are other shia majority countries. Pakistan has about 20% shia. India too has about 20% shia.

I am unable to go into the history of violence in shia-sunni relations but the two major events that have apparntly sparked bloodshed between shias and sunnis are Zia's Islamization of Pakistan and the American invasion of Iraq.

In Pakistan there has been a proliferation of sunni groups killing shias. in Iraq there is an ongoing shia sunni conflict. There was relative peace between shias and sunnis in Iraq as long as Saddam ruled - and now that is gone and there is utter chaos.

There is an interesting and educative interview about shia sunni relations in India. in India they dare not get at each others throats which is a good thing for everyone. The following article is about shia sunni relations in India
http://religion.info/english/interviews ... yxaw4-wdox

I believe that the Americans are clearly taking sides with the sunnis - with their relationship with sunni nations like KSA, Pakistan and Egypt. On the other hand, it may be argued (as the Indian shia cleric says) that the Americans seek to provoke conflict between Muslims to keep them divided. But the Muslims are divided anyway and it was not Americans that provoked anti-shia conflict in Pakistan.

India has no preference for shia over sunni or vice versa. We just don;t ant trouble - neither trouble for non Muslims from shias or sunnis nor strife between shias and sunnis. But that does not mean that we can ignore the fact that shais and sunnis are ripping each others guts out. Bahrain calling for sunni Paki troops is a clear move to try and maintain security for sunni leadership in a shia majority country.

To me it is heart rending to read of the violence in Iraq and clearly the violence is provoked by TV stations - some of which are allowed to work freely in the UK and other western nations. To that extent the "freedom" allowed in the west is telling Muslims "freedom to fruk yourselves"

Iran is a special case for India. We have deep cultural and linguistic relations going back before Islam. Iranians came to India for refuge as Parsees and got refuge here. Shias today can live in peace in India - which is not possible in Shitistan.

There is a theory that Persian shiism was a sort of silent rebellion against the Muslim Arab invader imposing his beliefs on an older Iranian culture. Perhaps that is true - but in any case I don't think India needs to follow the American line on Iran. On the other hand Iran has to be warned not to follow a Pakistani line. And there is no need for iran to go ballistic about Israel. If shias have aright to survive so do Jews. This can easily be dubbed as India taking sides in a shia sunni conflict - but what the heck - the shia minority in Pakistan are getting wiped out and there is no harm in standing up for what is right. We have USA that supports Pakistan and opposes Iran. And we have a Pakistan that is murdering shias. Common sense says that the Americans and Pakis are wrong. But what the fig are we going to do about it?

India does not really oppose sunnis or shias but the morons in sunni and shia nations get their knickers (or whatever they cover their gonads with) in a big twist if someone is seen as supporting the other group.

Would appreciate other views and inputs

It seems obvious that it is possible to foment violence between shias and sunnis. There appears to be no inbuilt mechanism to stop such violence. But that violence has been discouraged or curbed in many countries. I cannot speak for all of Islamic history here - I don't know enough. But in India shia-suni strife has been kept free from bestial violence - possibly because sunnis themselves are in a minority.

In Iraq, Saddam kept a lid on shia-sunni strife and his removal has made things unravel out of control.

What is keeping shias and sunnis in peace in Bahrain?

What prevents them from living peacefully in Pakistan?

Questions for those who are interested:
1. Has Islamic unity ever existed? If it has existed for some periods, has it been to the politico military detriment of surrounding non Islamic entities?
2. Is it better to encourage factionalism within Islam and let them rip each other apart?

Shiv, since the last three years, there is not much peace in Bahrain. The majority Shi'a have been demanding their share and are being brutally suppressed by the Sunni ruler with the assistance of KSA and Pakistan. As usual, the US is covertly on the Sunni wahhabi side.

On the larger question of Shi'a-Sunni peace, I think that Shi'a are relatively more peaceful at least in their sectarian issues than their counterpart. Please indulge me in recalling briefly the history of the Shi'a-Sunni divide as this gives a perspective on what I said above as well as the present day behaviour of the Islamists. This goes back to Ali's days soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad unexpectedly. As Ali, ordained by the Prophet to wash his body in case of death, was busy doing those rituals, trouble was brewing on succession. As Abu Bakr, behind the back of Ali, manoeuvered the Medinese ansars to elect himself as the Kalifa, Ali silently withdrew rather than violently confront him. After Abu Bakr's death, once again, the mantle fell on Omar. Ali once again withdrew to the intellectual task of compiling and teaching the Quran. However, Ali did not fail to criticize Abu Bakr and Omar whenever they erred in dispensing justice. It was only after Omar's death that Ali was offered the Kalifa on two conditions of following the Quran and the Sunna as well as the precedents set by the earlier two Kalifas. Ali rejected the second condition and the Kalifa went to Othman. When rebels killed Othman, the community at large in Medina offered Kalifa unconditionally to Ali this time. It, thus took Ali 24 long years to get that position and during this time, he maintained peace. Othman's cousin Muwaiyah (today, killers of Shi'a in Pakistan and elsewhere want to proudly assume this name) and Prophet's favourite and youngest wife Ayesha wanted Ali to punish the assassins of Othman. Ali sided with the argument by Othman's killers that since he had not ruled according to the Quran and the Sunna, they had a right to kill him. This led to a war between Ayesh and Muwaiyah on the one hand and Ali on the other. Ali almost defeated Muwaiyah's forces when the latter induced a ceasefire by waving the Quran at Ali's forces. Their dispute went to arbitration. Even some of Ali's followers deserted him at this stage saying that Islam did not prescribe any such arbitration process. This group was called the Kharrajis (outsiders) and Ali vanquished them. However, the arbitration itself was a backstab on Ali as one of the arbitrators, rather than being neutral, proposed Muwaiyah's name. One of the remnant kharrajis killed Ali and Muwaiyah was proclaimed Kalifa in Medina while Ali's son, Hassan, was declared Kalifa in Kufa (Iraq) where Ali had earlier moved the capital. Muwaiyah cunningly entered into an agreement with Hassan promising him Kalifa after his death and asking him to move to Medina thus dissolving the capital in Kufa. By most accounts, Hassan was poisoned by Muwaiyaj upon his return to Medina and Muwaiyah anointed his son Yazid as his successor. As the other son of Ali, Hussein, staked his claim to the Kalifa and decided to go back to the dissolved capital of Kufa, Yazid's army waylaid him at Karbala.He was decapitated and his severed head presented to Yazid. Both Ali and Hussein died during Muharram.

The Shi'a, from these episodes have learnt several lessons, the prominent being wary of any arbitration and show complete distrust of Sunnis. The violence let loose on the Shi’a during Muharram in certain countries in our neighbourhood is also understandable. The Sunnis have also learnt lessons. The emergence of kharrajis who term anybody as a munafiq and kill him/her, a practice that the most violent tanzeems in Pakistan and elsewhere practice today. Also, the practice of severing the head and presenting to the Emir is a practice stemming from these early days. One can also see the spirit of Hudabaiya in the actions of Muwaiyah and Yazid.

SSridhar wrote:Shiv, since the last three years, there is not much peace in Bahrain. The majority Shi'a have been demanding their share and are being brutally suppressed by the Sunni ruler with the assistance of KSA and Pakistan. As usual, the US is covertly on the Sunni wahhabi side.

Thanks for your knowledgeable inputs Sridhar. That was stuff that I was incapable of writing.

What interests me is if there was shia-sunni peace from say the year 1100 to 1500, or was it always warfare between the two. Again my knowledge of west Asia and Persia history from AD 1000 to AD 1900 or so is rudimentary and negligible.

I just wonder if, in a mixed Islamic society, shia-sunni conflict is inevitably present below the surface, unless artificially suppressed. I now realize that the strife in Iraq and Pakistan is significantly directed by shia-sunni conflict. It appears that there was an element of spirituality in sufism that gelled somewhat with shia beliefs and the Barelvis represented this aspect. Sunni Wahhabism is attacking Sufi tradition in Sindh apart from shias in Pakistan - so even the attacks of sufi traditions appears to be sunni-Wahhabi mediated. It is pretty confusing to me.

Next door to Pakistan, in Iran - shias are 95% and the US and the west are generally arrayed against them - arming the Saudis and other sunni states against Iran.

Further west of Iran lies Iraq, where the terrible bloodshed that we hear of every day is a plain and straightforward shia-sunni conflict.

So we have an arc of conflict between shias and sunnis from Iraq to Pakistan.

It is necessary for India to take a stand in this conflict zone but I wonder if our stand about one country will contradict what we feel about another. For example, what stand do we take on Iraq? Do we say "We want shias and sunnis to live as brothers and sisters"? This sounds damn good, but shia and sunnis when united have been against kafirs and that includes India - to letting them slug it out seems like a good idea.

Iran has supported Pakistan in the past. Even now I don't think Iran Pakistan relations are bad despite the fact that Pakis are merrily killing shias in Pakistan and supporting the sunni government in Bahrain.

What should our stand be vis a vis iran?

Cross post from Paki thread relevant here

partha wrote: Details - http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/840/7895.htm

A report in Roznama Dunya says Pakistan will provide 30,000 troops to GCC

On March 18, 2014, the king of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa, arrived in Pakistan on a three-day visit, which was seen as a move by the Sunni regime of Bahrain to seek military assistance from Pakistan to curb growing protests by the Shia majority in the country. The delegation comprised Bahrain's top leaders, including Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammad bin Mubarak bin Hamad Al-Khalifa; Chairman of the House of Representatives Khalifa bin Ahmed Al-Dhahrani; Chairman of the Shura Council Ali bin Saleh; Lt. Gen. Sheikh Muhammad bin Isa Al-Khalifa; and Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Salman Al-Khalifa, among others.

It should be noted that in recent years Bahrain has witnessed protests by Shia Muslims, who constitute the kingdom's majority population. Currently, soldiers and policemen from Pakistan are hired by the rulers of Bahrain to protect the Sunni monarchy. In the recent past, there were incidents of Pakistani policemen being beaten up in Bahrain. In April 2011, MEMRI released a report titled "Pakistan's Blackwater – Recruitment of 'Mercenaries' for Deployment in Bahrain", which examined how Pakistan's active duty as well as retired security forces were hired by Pakistani jihad-advocating ex-servicemen societies, for deployment in Bahrain.[1]

The March 18-20 visit to Pakistan by Bahrain's King Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa was seen primarily as an attempt to boost bilateral military cooperation, especially as the visit came soon after a visit by Saudi rulers which was also meant to boost Pakistan-Saudi defense cooperation. In February, it emerged that Saudi Arabia had sought Pakistani military forces and weapons for use in Syria.[2]

On the subject of the Bahraini king's visit to Pakistan, a number of Pakistani writers and columnists warned Pakistan against supporting the Sunni regimes in the Middle East. On Twitter, noted columnist Raza Rumi warned: "the day is not far when Pakistan will be a member of the Monarchies' Commonwealth – Al Bakistan, Saudi Arabia, & Bahrain!"[3] The name "Al Bakistan" is a pun on Pakistan becoming an Arab country, as the letter "P" isn't available in Arabic and is instead rendered as a "B." Blogger Nilofer Afridi Qazi tweeted: "Pakistan, Bahrain agree to enhance military relationship? What does that mean? We will support suppression of Shia rights/democratic movement?"[4] In a tweet, journalist Raja Arsalan Khan reminded that Pakistan's General Zia-ul-Haq had early in his career led a Jordanian force to crush the Palestinians: "#Pakistan will cooperate with #Bahrain in defense sector. Are we going to reproduce the job executed by #Zia in #Jordan."[5]

Roznama Dunya Report: "Bahraini King's Visit To Pakistan Should Be Seen In The Context Of The Middle East As The Region … Where The Shias Are In Majority, And In Conflict With The Sunnis [Who Control Regimes]"

According to a report in Roznama Dunya, Pakistan will provide 30,000 Pakistani troops for the defense of the Sunni regimes in the Gulf. The report quoted Saudi Arabia-based Pakistani columnist Rashid Hussain as saying that in the Gulf "there is a buzz that in order to reduce tension in the region, Pakistan will provide at least 30,000 troops for the defense shield force of the Gulf Cooperation Council, though the officials of the Pakistani foreign ministry are describing the current visit of the king of Bahrain as purely related to trade and business."[6]

Currently, bilateral trade between Bahrain and Pakistan stands at $40 million, which is in favor of Bahrain by $8 million dollars, the report noted. According to the report, international affairs expert Dr. Ejaz Hussain said that the "Bahraini king's visit to Pakistan should be seen in the context of the Middle East as the region is rich with Bahraini oil where the Shias are in majority, and in conflict with the Sunnis [who control regimes]."[7]

While the Pakistani government has sought to discourage media reports that Pakistan's engagement with Bahrain is aimed at defense cooperation, The News, a leading English-language Pakistani newspaper, headlined its report: "Pakistan, Bahrain agree to enhance military ties."[8] The Urdu-language Roznama Jang published a report titled: "Pakistan, Bahrain Agree To Boost Military Cooperation; 15 Agreements And 2 Pacts Signed."[9] Roznama Express, an Urdu-language daily, carried a front-page headline: "The Bahraini King Visits The Joint Staff Headquarters, Agreement To Boost Military Cooperation."

The Express Tribune: "Pakistan Had … Helped Bahrain Set Up Its Naval Forces, And 18 Percent Of The Gulf State's Air Force Comprises Pakistani Personnel"; "Almost 10,000 Pakistanis Are Serving In Security Services Of Bahrain"

The following are excerpts from a report by The Express Tribune, a liberal Pakistani daily, on the visit of the Bahraini king:[10]

"Pakistan and Bahrain discussed expanding their existing defense cooperation after high-level talks held at the Joint Staff headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi on Wednesday [March 19, 2014]. King of Bahrain Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa … visited the Joint Staff headquarters, where he was received by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif along with the chiefs of the three services, including Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif.

"During their formal talks, the countries discussed options to strengthen their defense and security cooperation. Historically, Pakistan and Bahrain enjoy strong defense ties. Pakistan had reportedly helped Bahrain set up its naval forces, and 18 percent of the Gulf state's air force comprises Pakistani personnel. It is estimated that almost 10,000 Pakistanis are serving in security services of Bahrain. During the Arab Spring, Bahrain is believed to have hired the services of retired military and police officials [from Pakistan] to quell the revolt.

"According to the official statement issued after the talks, the King of Bahrain lauded the professional competence, training, and courage of the defense forces of Pakistan. He said Pakistani armed forces have rendered matchless sacrifices for the defense of the country."

The most interesting take-away message for me from the above link (We all know that Pakistan is a proxytute - nothing new there) is that the "Middle East" has a shia majority, while sunnis control the regimes.

shiv wrote: This sounds damn good, but shia and sunnis when united have been against kafirs and that includes India - to letting them slug it out seems like a good idea.

Shiv,
even when shia-sunni conflict is raging when there is a direct and deadly attack on one of them, the other has tried to helped under the slogan "islam khatray main hain".

This particular dynamic meant that unless a kafir power can destroy both at the same time or one of them becomes powerful enough to destroy the other- Both sunni shia sustain. However once of them gains dominance, each of them always went after the kafirs. So for the kafirs, historically the game plan has been to create conditions where both of them fight each other continuously thus giving respite to the kafir.

However a word of caution. This was the exact game plan of the vijayanagara empire. We all know how and why it ended.

Shia Iran, Iraq and Bahrain would have almost as much oil power as Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar. So I think the contest is going to be interesting.

Virupaksha wrote: Shiv,
even when shia-sunni conflict is raging when there is a direct and deadly attack on one of them, the other has tried to helped under the slogan "islam khatray main hain".

Virupaksha, to me this is an interesting observation. It means that if "we" (the non Muslim world) do everything to foster continuing shia-sunni violence - a kind of "violent stability" can be achieved wherein the infighting bird-brains keep killing each other and never progress. Even if India tries to be "goodygoody" and calls for peace, it seems evidnt to me that the west is having a ball by letting these groups murder each other with no holds barred.

However I don't see this as a good long term plan. In my view reform of Islam is needed. But that reform may become attractive only after enough blood has been shed and a sufficient number of Muslims killed by opposing Muslim sects.

shiv wrote:However I don't see this as a good long term plan. In my view reform of Islam is needed. But that reform may become attractive only after enough blood has been shed and a sufficient number of Muslims killed by opposing Muslim sects.

That is where islam has hit a sixer. It has outlawed reform, by stating no new interpretations allowed.

muslims killing muslims historically has only lead to green vs greener version and the one which one has said it is greener version. taliban and pakistan are the obvious example. The losers in such fights have been called taqfir or apostate and the pesky issues were removed.

Turkey is the only model, which did not completely kill both sides, which had atleast some level of success initially. But Erdogan is showing that the model failed.

The only lasting effect as I see from Kamal's model is that there is no central caliphate. I really do not know whether it is beneficial or a loss in the long term.

I believe that the solution lies in soudi barbaria.

Shiv ji, Very good thread.
I wonder why India needs to take side of either Sunni or Shia muslims. We would take sides whosoever side is in the best interest of India. If that means kicking Al-Bakistan in the squeezed balls or hugging and kissing Iran or inviting King of Al-Arabia on 26th January, so be it. Neither Shia nor Sunnis have been any less violent to India, so I say let them sort out this battle with the sowrd of Islam while we have no dog in the fight.
Like Virupaksha ji mentioned, When it comes to us Dharmic folks, both Shia and Sunnis join hands to kill and loot us. Now it is more of a jostle between Iran and KSA for the leadership position in Arab world.

Gentlemen,

In any Sunni-Shia-Ahmedi conflict in the Land of the Pure and the Home of the Terrorists the Shias and Ahmedis will “Seek Refuge” i.e. MIGRATE to India and I am sure wyou will agree with me that the Pseudo-Seculars, Liberals, Leftists, Wagha Kandle Kissers Brigade will stand at the Border and Welcome them.

Call me Paranoid if you will but this will happen – most certainly.

P. S. Friends from Punjab do say that at present the Ahmedis, from the Land of the Pure and Home of the Terrorists, are a “Steady Trickle” into Indian Punjab.

Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle".

Cheers

Peregrine wrote:Gentlemen,

In any Sunni-Shia-Ahmedi conflict in the Land of the Pure and the Home of the Terrorists the Shias and Ahmedis will “Seek Refuge” i.e. MIGRATE to India and I am sure wyou will agree with me that the Pseudo-Seculars, Liberals, Leftists, Wagha Kandle Kissers Brigade will stand at the Border and Welcome them.

Call me Paranoid if you will but this will happen – most certainly.

P. S. Friends from Punjab do say that at present the Ahmedis, from the Land of the Pure and Home of the Terrorists, are a “Steady Trickle” into Indian Punjab.

Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle".

Cheers

Good point. What unites india as a country is om namah shivaya. In kashmir pandits follow kashmiri saivism, and in kanya kumari hindus follow saiva siddhantam. All strains of islam whether sunni or shia or ahmadi or whatever are out to wipe out hinduism from the land of birth. Our goal should be to prevent these muslims from entering our beloved land. These muslims have 55 other muslim majority countries where they can go and settle.

VikasRaina wrote: I wonder why India needs to take side of either Sunni or Shia muslims. We would take sides whosoever side is in the best interest of India. If that means kicking Al-Bakistan in the squeezed balls or hugging and kissing Iran or inviting King of Al-Arabia on 26th January, so be it. Neither Shia nor Sunnis have been any less violent to India, so I say let them sort out this battle with the sowrd of Islam while we have no dog in the fight.
Like Virupaksha ji mentioned, When it comes to us Dharmic folks, both Shia and Sunnis join hands to kill and loot us. Now it is more of a jostle between Iran and KSA for the leadership position in Arab world.

One possibility that comes to mind is that shia-sunni conflict within India is not in Indian interest, but shia-sunni conflicts outside India may be consonant with Indian interests. Such a situation is not unusual and a lot of nations pull off similar tricks sucessfully. But supporting shia or sunnis outside India could lead to some internal strife that needs to be managed.

Having said that - I have discussed only two situations so far, but there is a third. let me explain
1. shias and sunnis living without violent conflict in India and being encouraged/compelled to remain that way in India
2. shias and sunnis murdering each other or threatening each other in countries like Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The third possibility is:
3. shias and sunnis living in peace in Islamic countries

Which countries qualify for that? That seems like one hell of a question

Turkey seems to be the only Islamic country where shias and sunnis have manages to live in peace.

Relative peace exists in Iran and Azerbaijan - but they are almost 100% shia. Indonesian Muslims are 99% sunni' Malaysia actually has laws against shias. Bangladesh and Egypt are mostly sunni.

Syria and Lebanon have too much violence and no one knows how much of it is shia versus sunni

That leaves Pakistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia and gulf monarchies with a population of shias of more than 10%. Of these Pakistan nd Iraq are highly violent. Bahrain is getting there and KSA is just about hanging in there.

There seems to be a patter here and that pattern has been noticed before. Islamic countries tend to eliminate non Muslims first. Having eliminated or marginalized them, they turn upon internal Islamic divisions and the majority suppresses the minority.

Shias have replaced everyone else in Iran and Azerbaijan. There is peace

Sunnis have replaced everyone else in Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Bangladesh. There is no major infghting there

Wherever there is a big mix of shias and sunnis there is extreme violence and bloodshed. The photo of a father holding up his headless child in a link from another thread exemplifies the kind of hatred being preached by Islamic adversaries within Islam. More on that later

Peregrine wrote:
Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle"

I can believe this.

Anyone who reads Gary Bass' "The Blood Telegram" will realize that 90% of the refugees from genocide from Bangladesh were Hindu. this was hidden from Indians, including me - I was old enough to read and understand the news in 1971. Indira Gandhi's government feared that there would be riots against Muslims in India if the truth was revealed that most of the people being murdered or driven out of Bangladesh were Hindus. hence the news media were tled that the refugees were mixture of Muslims and Hindus.

So the government of today could be lying about Ahmedi refugees- but that is OT for this thread.

Shias can become globally powerful only if they split off the oil rich regions of Saudi Arabia, which IIRC are Shia Majority areas.

vic wrote:Shia Iran, Iraq and Bahrain would have almost as much oil power as Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar. So I think the contest is going to be interesting.

Already Shi'a Saudi is the richest oil producing region in the world. The entire east coast of Saudi Arabia is Shi'a majority and these people have an utter resentment for the Sunni Wahhabi ruler. As is the Shi'a belief in patience and martyrdom, they have so far not erupted but there is a big time bomb ticking there.

shiv wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle"

I can believe this.

Anyone who reads Gary Bass' "The Blood Telegram" will realize that 90% of the refugees from genocide from Bangladesh were Hindu. this was hidden from Indians, including me - I was old enough to read and understand the news in 1971. Indira Gandhi's government feared that there would be riots against Muslims in India if the truth was revealed that most of the people being murdered or driven out of Bangladesh were Hindus. hence the news media were tled that the refugees were mixture of Muslims and Hindus.

So the government of today could be lying about Ahmedi refugees- but that is OT for this thread.

And then there is the case of Sharad Pawar as CM of Maharashtra purposely lying about a bomb blast in Muslim majority area on the day of 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai to create an impression that both Muslims and Hindus were targeted.

Sunnis have the numbers.

An overwhelming majority of Muslims are Sunnis, while an estimated 10-13% are Shias. This report estimates that there are between 154 million and 200 million Shia Muslims in the world today.

Peregrine wrote:Gentlemen,

In any Sunni-Shia-Ahmedi conflict in the Land of the Pure and the Home of the Terrorists the Shias and Ahmedis will “Seek Refuge” i.e. MIGRATE to India and I am sure wyou will agree with me that the Pseudo-Seculars, Liberals, Leftists, Wagha Kandle Kissers Brigade will stand at the Border and Welcome them.

Call me Paranoid if you will but this will happen – most certainly.

P. S. Friends from Punjab do say that at present the Ahmedis, from the Land of the Pure and Home of the Terrorists, are a “Steady Trickle” into Indian Punjab.

Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle".

Cheers

The Ahmedias along with Aga Khan went out of their ways and bent over backwards at 90 degrees to prove their Islamic purity to the creators [both desi and Brit] of Pakistan by fostering "jihad" against hindus and J&K in particular in the transition to independence. I have many pamphlets from them for the entire 50's and early 60's in this regard.

But our candle-kissers are not going to be formally in the welcoming party. The "trickle" is being handled by the "centre" and interested portions of the "Sikh-independence" threads, and perhaps sponsored by transnational interests as well as the drugs trade that has gripped Indian Punjab. This is an issue not easily solvable by either of the Congress or the BJP - as both will to an extent be bound by the Akali and Takht drama.

Is Shia Sunni violence really out there since AD 750 or is it a recent phenomenon ?
Seems to me like they always were jostling for power but were not directly fighting or killing each other.
I don't see Iran or KSA moving their armies to thrash any ruler of opposite thought. Despite so many killings of Shia in Al-Bakistan, Iran hasn't even produced as much as a whimper compared to constant chanting of 'Kill Kill all the Jews' and 'Great Satan Amreeka'.
What we should be worried about is that India should not become battle ground of Shia-Sunni conflict chess game controlled by outsiders.

Iran was not really fully converted until 1500. Before that by 800's the blowback from central Asia had been squeezing both Iranian muslims and Baghdadi caliphate by the turks and then Mongols. Hulaku burned down Baghdad. Turkish slave soldiers turned the tables both on Iranian and Arab muslims. So by late 900's- Arab Sunni power was really broken to have any meaningful contest with equally back-broken Iranian shia-ism.

VikasRaina wrote: I don't see Iran or KSA moving their armies to thrash any ruler of opposite thought. Despite so many killings of Shia in Al-Bakistan, Iran hasn't even produced as much as a whimper compared to constant chanting of 'Kill Kill all the Jews' and 'Great Satan Amreeka'.
What we should be worried about is that India should not become battle ground of Shia-Sunni conflict chess game controlled by outsiders.

As far as I can tell, the mechanism by which hatred is spread is via the pulpit by preachers. Islamic societies exist in a situation where preachers are very "hands on" - they are leading prayers five times a day every day, and are doing special things on Fridays. This gives them ample opportunity to foment hatred couched in vague language. TV stations are apparently responsible for fomenting violence in Iraq. Shia TV stations broadcast from the UK and Sunni stations from Egypt. Again its not suited-booted leaders on those TV channels but imams and clergy. As per a recent program I saw on BBC, a rich Kuwaiti funds the TV station in the UK .

If India does not control this kind of information flow, it can be used to foment trouble in India. The UK and the US are very strict about media who might foment violence within the US/UK but clearly they will allow as "freedom of speech" any media that foment violence in other countries. That is why objections to Doniger's crap are so fake. The west does not give a shit if people kill themselves abroad. But I digress.

Proxy wars are being fought by Iran and Saudi Arabia in other Muslim nations. Funding of media comes from abroad and the local governments (in Iraq and Pakistan) simply do not have the power to stop such media from propagating a violent message. Ultimately this may all amount to a smaller power game to show who is boss in west Asia as opposed to who dominates the world. Iran, with its "democratic" transition to a power that does not kowtow to the west is putting fingers up sunni backsides in Iraq and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia for its part is doing exactly that for the opposite team.

Pakistan has been a prostitute in every sense of the term. Our (Indian) obsession with Pakistan was merely a small post colonial sideshow where "Islam" was being separated from the corruptions of India. Pakistan's Khilafat dreams were egged on by the success of Pakistan and support from the USA. But Pakistan has now become party to a different game - a shia-sunni game being fought between KSA and Iran. I suspect that Iran does not react to shia killings in Pakistan simply because it is not an Iran Pakistan issue - it is a shia sunni issue. Iran's revenge will come in fomenting trouble in Bahrain and setting off bombs in Iraq.

brihaspati wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Gentlemen,

In any Sunni-Shia-Ahmedi conflict in the Land of the Pure and the Home of the Terrorists the Shias and Ahmedis will “Seek Refuge” i.e. MIGRATE to India and I am sure wyou will agree with me that the Pseudo-Seculars, Liberals, Leftists, Wagha Kandle Kissers Brigade will stand at the Border and Welcome them.

Call me Paranoid if you will but this will happen – most certainly.

P. S. Friends from Punjab do say that at present the Ahmedis, from the Land of the Pure and Home of the Terrorists, are a “Steady Trickle” into Indian Punjab.

Seemingly the Indian Media is under strict orders not to mention this "Trickle".

Cheers

The Ahmedias along with Aga Khan went out of their ways and bent over backwards at 90 degrees to prove their Islamic purity to the creators [both desi and Brit] of Pakistan by fostering "jihad" against hindus and J&K in particular in the transition to independence. I have many pamphlets from them for the entire 50's and early 60's in this regard.

But our candle-kissers are not going to be formally in the welcoming party. The "trickle" is being handled by the "centre" and interested portions of the "Sikh-independence" threads, and perhaps sponsored by transnational interests as well as the drugs trade that has gripped Indian Punjab. This is an issue not easily solvable by either of the Congress or the BJP - as both will to an extent be bound by the Akali and Takht drama.

Several enterprising Pakistani Military commanders of the 50s and 60s were of Ahmediya extraction. Gen AA Mallik of Op Gibralter, Gen Janjua who handed India who only defeat on the western front by taking Chamb etc. were Qadianis.

The Qadianis had a separate battalion of volunteers fighting in Kashmir funded by qadiani donations.

I do not want to see the thread sidetracked into talking about Ahmedis, but the subject is relevant to an extent here. There is an interesting "sub plot" in intra-Islamic relations. They all unite to hate the Jew, and, in the case of India, all denominations united before 1947 to hate the Hindu.

We therefore find that at a nation-state-diplomatic level, many of these Islamic nations are openly anti-Israel, and Pakistan is openly anti-India. Saudi Arabia is not vocally anti-India but their national policies only encourage an Islamic identity that excludes non Muslims.

But at an "on-the-ground" personal level and at an Islamic doctrinal level they have deep differences between Islamic sects - with a sunni-shia divide being the most visible one. As long as Islamic states can ally against non Muslims, the internal divisions are kept hidden. hence we have this laughable OIC type organization.

Let me briefly digress into world history - at least recent history. Capture and control of entire nations used to happen regularly in the past and a captured nation would simply bow to the dictates of the conqueror. The industrial revolution and the rise of Europe made such capture and control easier, but the tipping point came in the inability of capturing countries in holding "their" territories in the face of rising native populations and the fact that the "natives" all acquired arms. By 1960, most territory "captures" were more or less over. However "freedom struggles" have been provoked to try and roll back territory control and make some countries face the same type of downhill skiing that colonial powers had to do. The bottom line is that it now much more difficult to overrun and capture huge territories and "hold on" to them because of the problems of controlling a native population in an environment where anyone in the world who wants a fight can acquire automatic weapons.

The relevance of this latter day difficulty in overrunning, subjugating and holding on to territories has, in my view affected the outlook of all Islamic nations. As long as Islam was expanding there were new territories and sources of income to prevent infighting among Muslim sects. Once expansion was killed, infighting started. I state categorically that there is no moderating mechanism in Islam to stop disagreements from leading to a murderous battle. It is simply convenient to turn the battle against the non Muslims - which is something that Muslims of all denominations in all Islamic countries can agree upon. Unfortunately when there is no convenient non Islamic whipping boy like Israel (or the Hindu, for Pakistanis) the same rules and the same tools that are employed against non Muslims are available for use against Muslims who have doctrinal disagreements. This is a flaw in the way Islam is practised universally - a flaw that no one wants to admit, because saying that Islam could have a flaw means an automatic death sentence. But I digress again.

There is almost no scope for territorial expansion in the name of Islam. If an economy cannot be sustained by expansion and war, it needs mineral wealth or industry/tourism to survive. In the absence of that, and under the weight of an ever increasing population with weak or despotic governments, shia-sunni conflicts are only going to intensify. I can foresee no situation in which sunni dominated nations and shia dominated nations suddenly see light and say "Hey we need to stop killing each other". At very great risk are the monarchies of the Arabian peninsula and the US will do everything to preserve them.

This is a situation in which the last thing India needs to do is to "take a princpled stand". That would be useless and stupid. India needs to take the stand of a greedy opportunist. Nothing India can do will stop shias and sunnis from murdering each other. We will simply have to make the best of the situation, keep our sanity and develop.

>>India needs to take the stand of a greedy opportunist. Nothing India can do will stop shias and sunnis from murdering each other. We will simply have to make the best of the situation, keep our sanity and develop.

And A-effing-men to that!

Let me look at it from a different perspective.
Is this Shia-Sunni feud nothing but jostling for supremacy. Now proxitute like TSP or Iraq or Bahrain might think that they are fighting for the soul of Islam but at the core, It is Sunni who are ruling the Islamic thought and the Mecca while Shia's want to control the city and be de-facto owners of Islamic thought.
The way Islam is constructed, They will always find one reason or the other to kill either the kaffirs or the lesser shade of green. What we see in TSP is exaggerated form of this mentality.

Shivji, To correct myself, Maybe Iran is not powerful enough to take on the Sunni world alone. Since it can froth from the mouth against Israel and USA as much as it wants without any pressure of taking action, it is fine but when it comes to suppression of Shia by Sunnis, It can't because then it will have to put its money where the mouth is.

BTW In India, who have been the major Shia rulers / Leaders besides rumored Mughal dynasty and Bahamani Rulers and of course the old Jinn.

First Six months of the year India should support Sunnis and support Shia in the second half of the every year. We shall have no say in the slaughter ratio but must intervene to restore the balance if one side is on the verge of loosing all. India have no other role to play but to act like Dinia and keep the fire going till the last Jannati sprint on lighted up Highway 72 North ( a Known man just build this) all the way to the mountain top of HoorPuri.

Posting in full, an article from
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 05931.html

Al-Qa'ida, the second act: The hate preachers fuelling sectarianism



Since 9/11, the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s GCHQ have justified their mass interception of their citizens’ private communications by claiming that this helps them to identify “terrorists”. At the same time, the US Treasury has made great efforts to detect and block financial donations to al-Qa’ida-type movements across the world. But, given the spectacular expansion of such groups over the past 12 and a half years, the efforts by these institutions are demonstrably failing.

A reason for this failure is that, in seeking to disrupt the secret infrastructure of jihadists, security services neglect the public-support systems of the movements which are as important as their covert backing.

“Half of Jihad is Media” is one slogan posted on a jihadist website, which, taking media in its broadest sense, is wholly correct. The ideas, actions and aims of fundamentalist Sunni jihadists are broadcast daily through satellite television stations, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. As long as these powerful means of propagandising exist, groups similar to al-Qa’ida will never go short of money or recruits.

Much of what is disseminated is hate-propaganda against Shia and, more occasionally, against Christians, Sufis and Jews. It calls for support for jihad in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and anywhere else holy war is being waged: a recent posting shows a romantic- looking suicide bomber who was “martyred” carrying out an attack on an Egyptian police station in Sinai.

Looking at a selection of online posters and photos, what is striking is not only their violence and sectarianism but also the professionalism with which they are produced. The jihadists may yearn for a return to the norms of early Islam, but their skills in using modern communications and the internet are well ahead of most political movements in the world.

On the other hand, the content, as opposed to the technical production, is frequently violent and crudely sectarian as in three pictures from Iraq. The first shows two men in uniform, their hands tied behind their backs, lying dead on what looks like a cement floor. Blood flows from their heads as if they have been shot or their throats cut. The caption reads: “Shia have no medicine but the sword – Anbar victories.”

The second picture shows two armed men beside two bodies, identified by the caption as members of the anti-al-Qa’ida Sunni Awakening movement in Iraq’s Salah ad-Din province. The third shows a group of Iraqi soldiers holding a regimental banner, but the words on it have been changed to make them offensive to Sunni: “God curse Omar and Abu Bakr” (two early Sunni leaders).

More sophisticated are appeals for money for jihadi fighters by Sunni clergy and politicians, one raising $2,500 (£1,500) for every fighter sent to Syria and claiming to send 12,000 fighters to the country. One picture shows seven shelves, as if in a shop, but when you look closely you see that each shelf carries a different type of grenade. The caption reads: “Anbar’s mujahedeen pharmacy for Shia.”

It is not just Twitter and Facebook accounts that are used but two television stations, Safa and Wesal, based in Egypt but reportedly financed from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with journalists and commentators who are vocally hostile to the Shia. Wesal TV broadcasts in five languages: Arabic, Farsi, Kurdish, Indonesian and Hausa.

It is not just Twitter and Facebook accounts that are used but two television stations, Safa and Wesal, based in Egypt but reportedly financed from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with journalists and commentators who are vocally hostile to the Shia. Wesal TV broadcasts in five languages: Arabic, Farsi, Kurdish, Indonesian and Hausa.

Hate preachers, likewise, have enormous followings on YouTube. For instance, Sheikh Mohammad al-Zughbi in Egypt calls God to protect Egypt from “the criminal traitors and the criminal Shia,” as well as from the Jews and Crusaders. Another sermon entitled “Oh Syria, the victory is coming,” says President Bashar al-Assad is “seeking help from these Persians, the Shia, the traitors, the Shia criminals.”

These rants could be dismissed as being addressed to a small, fanatical audience, but the numbers of viewers show them to be immensely popular. Muhammad Ali Haji, of the Centre for Academic Shia Studies, points out that “the 3.9 million Saudi Facebook users use it much more than in the US or UK”.

The internet has allowed jihadist fighters to establish an intimate link with their financial and political supporters because they can post pictures and films of their exploits.

Observers of rebels in Syria notice that they spend much of their time on the internet, from which they get their vision of what is happening (the same is true of pro-government civilians). Film of atrocities by the other side are a driving force for sectarian and political hatred, although some of these are fabricated.

A foreign journalist in a Syrian refugee camp in south-east Turkey noticed children watching a video of what was claimed to be Alawites cutting off the heads of Sunni prisoners with a chainsaw. He recognised the film as in fact coming from Mexico, where a drug lord had decapitated some of his rivals and posted a film of it to intimidate others.

There is additional evidence about the impact of satellite television and jihadist websites from prisoners taken in Iraq. While, like all prisoners they are likely to say what their captors want them to say, their accounts in interviews on Iraqi television ring true. Waleed bin Muhammad al-Hadi al-Masmoudi from Tunisia, the third-largest supplier of foreign jihadists to Syria, said he was a driver in his home country. In taking his decision to come to Iraq to fight, he said, “I was deeply influenced by al-Jazeera TV channel”. Together with 13 other volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen, he had no difficulty in making his way to Fallujah.

Abdullah Azam Salih al-Qahtani, a former Saudi officer, said: “Arabic media and jihadist websites convinced me to come.”

An interesting point that emerges from these interviews is the degree to which the war is self-generating, because veteran fighters had all lost brothers and other relatives. An Iraqi car mechanic, Sinan Abd Himood Nisaif al-Janabi, said he was deeply affected when “the Americans, who lost some of their soldiers in an explosion, killed my brother”.

How far will the flood of Salafi-jihadist propaganda, most of which emanates from or is paid for by Saudi Arabia and the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf, be restrained by the recent Saudi turn against the jihadists? As I described in previous articles, this change of policy has so far involved decrees against Saudis fighting in other countries. The Saudi official who was most associated with using jihadists to overthrow Assad, the intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has been removed from control of Syrian policy.

Ominously for the Saudi state, jihadist social media has begun to attack the Saudi royal family. There is a picture of King Abdullah giving a medal to President George W Bush, captioned: “Medal for invading two Islamic countries.”

Another more menacing photo on a Twitter account is taken in the back of a pick-up truck. It shows armed and masked fighters and the caption reads: “With God’s will we’ll enter the Arabia Peninsula like this. Today the Levant and tomorrow al-Qurayat and Arrar [two cities in northern Saudi Arabia].”

But the propaganda tap cannot be switched off so abruptly because the jihadist cause has too many genuine adherents in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states. Saudi second thoughts have come too late because jihadist movements such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) and Jabhat al-Nusra are well-established and have their own revenues. Isis has a tax system in Sunni parts of Iraq and both movements have control of oil wells in north-east Syria.

How far will the flood of Salafi-jihadist propaganda, most of which emanates from or is paid for by Saudi Arabia and the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf, be restrained by the recent Saudi turn against the jihadists? As I described in previous articles, this change of policy has so far involved decrees against Saudis fighting in other countries. The Saudi official who was most associated with using jihadists to overthrow Assad, the intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has been removed from control of Syrian policy.

Ominously for the Saudi state, jihadist social media has begun to attack the Saudi royal family. There is a picture of King Abdullah giving a medal to President George W Bush, captioned: “Medal for invading two Islamic countries.”

Another more menacing photo on a Twitter account is taken in the back of a pick-up truck. It shows armed and masked fighters and the caption reads: “With God’s will we’ll enter the Arabia Peninsula like this. Today the Levant and tomorrow al-Qurayat and Arrar [two cities in northern Saudi Arabia].”

But the propaganda tap cannot be switched off so abruptly because the jihadist cause has too many genuine adherents in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states. Saudi second thoughts have come too late because jihadist movements such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) and Jabhat al-Nusra are well-established and have their own revenues. Isis has a tax system in Sunni parts of Iraq and both movements have control of oil wells in north-east Syria.

Christian churches are considered places of idolatry and polytheism because of pictures of Jesus and his mother and the use of the cross, all of which shows that Christians do not worship a single God. This is not a view confined to Saudi Arabia: in Bahrain, 71 Sunni clerics demanded that the government withdraw its permission for a Christian church to be built. When the al-Khalifa royal family crushed pro-democracy protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in 2011, the first act of the security forces was to destroy several dozen mosques, shrines and graves of Shia holy men, on the grounds that they had not received the correct building permits.

There is no doubt that well-financed Wahhabi propaganda has contributed to the deepening and increasingly violent struggle between Sunni and Shia. A study published last year by the directorate-general for external policies of the European Parliament is called “The involvement of Salafism/Wahhabism in the support and supply of arms to rebel groups around the world”. It begins by saying: “Saudi Arabia has been a major source of financing to rebel and terrorist organisations since the 1980s.” It adds that Saudi Arabia it has given $10bn (£6bn) to promote the Wahhabi agenda and predicts that the “number of indoctrinated jihadi fighters” will increase.

So far the jihadists have largely targeted Shia or related sects in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan, where they are numerous, and in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia where they are a small minority. But violent hostility to Shia does not mean that the Salafi-jihadists approve of Sunni or Western states. If there is another Palestinian uprising, or some such event creating pan-Islamic anger, then the West is likely to be targeted once again. All the ingredients for a repeat of 9/11 are slipping into place, the difference today being that al-Qa’ida-type organisations are now far more powerful.

This article is about sunni divisions. Will post quotes only

Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both fantastically wealthy, fanatical Sunni Muslim countries, passionately hate each other and support different groups within the Islamic opposition groups in Syria. Roughly speaking, the Qataris, along with the now only nominally secular Turkish Republic, support the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudis support Salafi, i.e., other radically anti-Western fanatical Sunni fundamentalist groups. They disagree on the nature and theological principles of the future Muslim Caliphate that they believe will rule the entire world.

And to be very clear, all of these Sunni fundamentalist groups, whether supported by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, are passionately and aggressively anti-Western, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, and anti-Israel. All of the non-Sunni world has a huge stake in their defeat and might even consider ways to help them fight each other.
<snip>
The Qataris and Saudis, whose ruling families are distantly related, hate each other, even though they are both Wahhabi fundamentalists. Qatar continually looks for ways to poke the Saudis in the eye; for example, establishing the wildly popular al-Jazeera. It chose the name because in Arabic it means the entire Arabian Peninsula, which the Saudis, because of their size, clearly dominate. Qatar is a relative pinpoint in size, but the name of its international TV station subtly tells the Arab world it is more important than the Saudis. Saudia Arabia, in unending battle, established its own TV station which broadcasts out of Dubai—al-'Arabiya—meaning the Arab, or Arabness—which is meant to counter al-Jazeera. [Author's Note: There are two TV stations named al-Jazeera, one broadcasting in Arabic and the other in English. Both owned and operated by the Qatari government, they have completely separate staffs and editorial policies. Al-Jazeera in English is not particularly anti-Western and has interesting content. Al-Jazeera in Arabic is viciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and incites its viewers to fight the West. Al-Jazeera English was created to pacify Western governments, who are lulled into believing that since both stations have the same name, they must air the same material.

Shiv/Others,

You guys are posting excellent articles about shia-sunni, etc. I have certainly benefited from your posts. My own take is thaat shia-sunni division has no solution as it started at the very beginning of islam. Shias and sunnis will continue to slaughter each other until islam fades away. Muslims and other so called seculars of the indian subcontinent will continue to deny this reality and will keep saying politically correct things. It is sad to see the converted shias and sunnis of the subcontinent killing each other because of something which happened in the distant arab land 1400 years ago.

akashganga wrote: It is sad to see the converted shias and sunnis of the subcontinent killing each other because of something which happened in the distant arab land 1400 years ago.

Akashganga I can see that there are two ways to react to this:

1. Resignation, <shake of head> and let them slaughter themselves.

or

2. Point out that Islam needs reform. Since there is denial all round on all counts, no harm in telling it like it is so that a few thinking individuals get the message. No need to worry about whether anyone is listening or not to such a suggestion. That is irrelevant.

It would be absurd for educated people in islamic countries to imagine that others are not watching and are not seeking to either take advantage of their bestial stupidity, or react as you have done, in a very civilized manner and offering humane advice.

Historical Note:
For over a thousand years since the Greek Citi-States, Persia was the power house of the Middle East. The fall of Persia to Arabs in seige of Ctesiphon(637) put down Perisian power and made them a Sunni Arab power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ctesiphon

The Abbasid dynasty was Arabo-Persian and made Baghdad nearby the new capital. No more Persian dominance for 800 years.
In the begining of the 16th century the Safavids turned Shia and made Persia a Shia power.
Since then Shia Persian power has revived Persia/Iran's relevance to Middle East.


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

Modern Arab angst is after Khomeini overthrew the Pahlavi's in 1978 and presented an ideological challenge to Wahabism.

So current conflict has Arabs Vs Persians, Sunni vs Shia facets.

ramana wrote: So current conflict has Arabs Vs Persians, Sunni vs Shia facets.

Yes, and also nation-state facets. One thing to note is as per some, Khomenei's ideas has a charge of being neo-sunni in its approaches and in that sense, took shia and sunnis closer to each other, from an ideological stand point.

shiv wrote:

akashganga wrote: It is sad to see the converted shias and sunnis of the subcontinent killing each other because of something which happened in the distant arab land 1400 years ago.

Akashganga I can see that there are two ways to react to this:
.....
.....

2. Point out that Islam needs reform. Since there is denial all round on all counts, no harm in telling it like it is so that a few thinking individuals get the message. No need to worry about whether anyone is listening or not to such a suggestion. That is irrelevant.

It would be absurd for educated people in islamic countries to imagine that others are not watching and are not seeking to either take advantage of their bestial stupidity, or react as you have done, in a very civilized manner and offering humane advice.

I agree we indians and other non-islamists should point out the absurdity of this so called religion of peace. That was how we hindus of the subcontinent survived and retained our 10000 year old dharmic culture and way of life. You guys in this forum are doing great service by discussing this.

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.

Actually Shiais is itself the first reform. I will let Agnimitra exaplina n he can do a better job.

The first fist between the four Caliphs was really about who controls the trade routes and the loot as Muhammad had decreed 20% or one-fifth is the Caliph's share. This is hidden in all the bokwas about who and how should succeession be determined.
Sunnis: Election by shura eventually of one i.e. the Caliph appoints his successor.
Shias: Blood relation of Muhammed.

Hence even kasai claim to be Quraishis! And all sort of Syeds, Sharifs and Shiekhs.

Another version of this thread:

Understanding Islamic Society


Our themes keep repeating.

Chennai youth fighting in Syria jihad

Police and intelligence services have begun a transnational investigation into revelations that at least two Chennai college students are now training with jihadist groups in Syria, highly placed intelligence sources have told TheHindu .

The revelations, the sources said, have come from Gul Mohamed Maracachi Maraicar, a resident of Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu who was stripped of his Singapore permanent residency and repatriated to India in February.

Mr. Maraicar, a former employee of information technology giant IBM in Singapore, told authorities in that country that jihadists had successfully recruited students from a college in Chennai. The investigation, the sources said, began with the disappearance of Tamil Nadu-born Singapore permanent resident Haja Fakkurudeen Usman Ali earlier this year. Based on information from an informant, Singapore’s intelligence services determined Mr. Ali had left Singapore for Syria on January 22, 2014, travelling through Turkey — where several jihadist groups operating inside the violence-torn state are now based.

In a statement released on Sunday, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs said Mr. Ali, a supermarket manager, was being investigated for going to Syria “with the intention to undertake violence” in the ongoing armed conflict there.

It said the government had invoked the Internal Security Act to strip Mr. Maraicar of his permanent resident status. Mr. Maraicar is not being currently prosecuted in India, and TheHindu was unable to locate his legal representatives. Police sources said he was cooperating with investigations, and declined to name the students, saying their families were attempting to persuade their wards to return home.

Intelligence sources said Mr. Ali’s ideological radicalisation had begun with his contact with Mr. Maraicar.

In 2007, sources familiar with the investigation said, Mr. Ali visited Cuddalore as a volunteer on a religious missionary trip.

The jihad in Syria as far as I can tell involves sunni groups fighting sunnis as well as a sunni-shia fight. Violence is the bottom line. For no apparent reason these people travel to fight in jihad which emerges in foreign Islamic societies and ends up in a cycle of violence. The word "globa jihad" is a dumbed down expression that does not reveal the fact that if the jihad is not against kafir non Muslims it is often a shia versus sunni fight or a sunni Saudi wahhabi versus other sunnis.

I think that this needs to be recognized and acknowledged because the consequences for India can be quite severe.The internet and social media are liberally used in spreading the literature that fosters hate. This is something that needs to be monitored carefully

Some thoughts I had when I started this thread was the fact that in our "understanding" of the dynamics of Islamic societies, we have hitherto been concentrating on lifting the veil imposed by the "Do not talk about this" rule in Indian secularism. I do not want to rehash any discussion of secularism, or about Islamic reform or anything.

The idea is to look deeper at the degree to which dynamics within Islamic society drive conflict and geopolitics. With an Indian reluctance to discuss anything at all about Islamic society in the post independence period - Indira Gandhi even hid the fact that Bangladesh refugees were 80% Hindu simply because Islam and its propensity to create clerics who order killings has always been a taboo subject.

The subject has been more out in the open now and it is important for us to see the internal fissures that exist. The shia sunni divide is just one of them. There appear to be several intra-sunni fissures with unpronounceable names that we are unfamiliar with - but I think the "shia sunni" divide lends itself to easier discussion and learning. There may be even more iterations of this theme as we achieve a deeper understanding of a subject that Indian have not been able to talk about, let alone study objectively.

When the British came and looked at Indian society they decided to name and classify minor identities under broad heading of castes or sub castes. This technique falls within the reductionist method of classifying and naming as one would do to chemicals, plant and animal species. or body structures as one does in anatomy. The technique has its uses, even if it suffers from the drawback of creating dividing lines which are disputed or do not exist.

Islamic commentators, especially of the "pan Islamic" variety like those of the Pakistaniyat genre that we are exposed to in India, have always tended to assert that no dividing lines exist within Islamic society. This is patently false, and a dissection and classification is important for learning. The shia sunni divide is a fundamental schism that becomes important because it is extremely violent and bloody. Islamic society, despite attempting to hide behind the slogan connecting Islam and peace have absolutely no control over violence. This is getting more important as opposing forces are gradually arming themselves with AK 47s, rocket launchers and RDX. From many reports it seems that there is even a sunni nuclear bomb promised by Pakistan to Arab sattes and a hypothetical shia nuclear bomb that Iran is accused of creating. Note that boh shoa and sunni nuclear bombs can be used as anti kafir nuclear weapons. So here is a topic that must not be avoided.