>Sufism will never replace wahhabism and batshit Sunnis as the majority sect in Islam
>Islam will never be glimmering desert cities and wise old sultans in the public imagination ever again
I've just had to listen to two of my mates going on about how Islam is shit and how it ruined the Middle East and nothing good came out of the region since the people became Muslims.
SandNinjas and oil jews isnt that bad. The middle east is currently really tryhard with their government and may have 15 thousand gdp per capita 20 years from now. Right now its 5k, one fifth of united states gdppc.
At a picnic king Harun was resting his head on the knee of Bohlul.
"I understand you are related to a band of thieves." The king said. "What exactly is their relationship?"
"I am their pillow, your majesty."
A remote relative knocked at Mulla's door and said, "I hear that you have some fine seven year old vinegar."
"Give me some."
"Look," Mulla replied, "if I were to give my vinegar to any casual friend or relative who knocked on my door, it wouldn't last seven days, let alone seven years."
I love Sufi Nasreddin Hodjah wise-fool stories
>have a religion with many unique, interesting interpretations
>one day a faggot with too much sand in his ass decides to call his interpretation the legitimate way to follow said religion
>only reason anybody accepts this is because he was born in the birthplace of said religion
>almost every country with the same religion, surrounding the shittyplace throws their culture and interpretation under the bus and follows the madman like a herd of sheep, never questioning anything
Why has there never been a massive reformation or schism like in Christianity?
There just aren't enough courses on offer in middle eastern history for people to shake those kinds of thoughtless bits of teleological nonsense. I'm a history graduate student and we only have one professor who offers grad level classes on the middle east - I had to take one as an undergrad before getting into the master's program because she was going to be gone during my first two semesters.
I also took three classes on the ME at an undergraduate level. I think it is tremendously important that people acquire more sophisticated understandings of ME (colloquially including North Africa and parts of central Asia) history.
There have been a ton of small scale schisms and theological disputes over the ages, but you're right that nothing similar in scale or substance to the reformation ever happened. Personally I "blame" the Ottoman empire - their official position was that they were the Caliphate and arbiters of Islamic practice, but in reality they were, like any land-empire, "tolerant" in that they allowed people the latitude to practice unorthodox religious interpretations without too much intervention. In that context, without the backing of a state, no one interpretation was able to marshal the resources to engage in the kind of theological bloodletting we saw in Europe.
That's my theory, anyway
I'd argue that that depends on where exactly you're talking about. I'm Egyptian for example, there's a lot of Sufis here who are allowed to do their own thing with no hassle, save the salafist cuntbags.
But yes, in a lot of other places your general thought applies
Really? I'm really surprised by that. I spent a little time under a professor I really respect reading about the rise of Salafism and she chalked it up largely to intellectual developments in the Egyptian ulama. Because some of the world's greatest, most influential madrasas were churning out Salafist doctrine after Egypt became autonomous within the Ottoman empire, their fatwas had a ton credibility and thus we saw the weird fundamentalist-infused nationalism of the 20th century.
What do you think about that? How tolerant are contemporary Egyptians of moderate Islamic practice?
Trotskyists have won my friend
This is also happening to Christianity which is getting blamed for everything wrong with the west and Asian/Indian Culture(and Men) and Literally every culture that isn't Hendoistic
Did she blame the Jews or just "the West"?
Because it's all the Jews' fault.
No, but once another graduate student (who happens to be very Jewish, moderate orthodox or whatever) sat in someone else's chair and she said "How Israeli of you!" and then immediately tried to walk that comment back. It was fucking hilarious.
>Once Nasreddin was invited to deliver a sermon. When he got on the pulpit, he asked, Do you know what I am going to say? The audience replied "no", so he announced, I have no desire to speak to people who don't even know what I will be talking about! and left.
>The people felt embarrassed and called him back again the next day. This time, when he asked the same question, the people replied yes. So Nasreddin said, Well, since you already know what I am going to say, I won't waste any more of your time! and left.
>Now the people were really perplexed. They decided to try one more time and once again invited the Mulla to speak the following week. Once again he asked the same question – Do you know what I am going to say? Now the people were prepared and so half of them answered "yes" while the other half replied "no". So Nasreddin said Let the half who know what I am going to say, tell it to the half who don't, and left.
Why are philosophers such trolls?
I wish Temujin finished the job.
I say this both jokingly and with complete seriousness.
What sort of autonomy are we talking about here? Do you mean Mohammed Ali, or after 1882, where we were technically part of the Ottoman empire but also a British protectorate? I can answer both, it's rare someone gives me an opportunity to ramble about this sort of thing.
>How tolerant are contemporary Egyptians of moderate Islamic practice?
That's a question with a nuanced answer tbqh. You have varying degrees of social conservatism grounded in culture (that, in itself, draws religious legitimacy), but that's because of the predominant political position of most Egyptians. You need to define moderate Islamic practice; politically or socially?
That being said, shiites aren't exactly, um, living the best life they could possibly live, though I'd argue that's both political (moreso actually) than religious, no matter the rhetoric being thrown around.
Nasreddin might be the trolliest of them all desu, since there's no actual work attributed to him, just a huge body of hilarious aphorisms
Mulla was a guest in a house. Long past the dinner hour they hadn't yet served food. So he began to yawn.
"What causes yawning?" The host asked.
Mullah replied: "Yawning can be caused by either lack of sleep or hunger. Fortunately, I have had enough sleep."
that's right bitch, give the man his pot roast
>What sort of autonomy are we talking about here? Do you mean Mohammed Ali, or after 1882, where we were technically part of the Ottoman empire but also a British protectorate?
I was thinking of after Mohammed Ali - I always got the sense that was more culturally significant for Egyptians than British civil occupation.
>You need to define moderate Islamic practice; politically or socially?
Socially mostly - I've always gotten the sense that most Egyptians believe in the sort of Islamic democracy represented by the Muslim brotherhood, which I would characterize as politically Liberal compared to other non-representative Muslim states.
I'm gonna head off to a seminar soon but I'll make sure to check this thread later, I really love hearing about ME history from Middle Easterners or people familiar with the region instead of dickhead deus vult memers.
>post Mohammed Ali
Ah, so you mean the Egyptian Renaissance. (We call it El-Nahda El Masreyya). Well, I'd say that religion there in general was a patchwork quilt, whereby you'd have a lot of different sects/religions entirely represented in one way or another. Sure, salafists had some form of credibility, but they weren't a sweeping movement that dominated Egypt. Most of Egyptian nationalism in the late 19th century developed around a central concept called pharaonism, which emphasized being Egyptian before being an adherent of fate (x) (y) or (z). In fact, it was an age of Islamic modernism. For reference, see a dude called Rifa'a El-Tahtawi. He has a saying that's very famous here, whereby he went to France, and reflecting on it, he wrote that the French had the 'virtues of Islam without being Muslims' - clearly against religious zealousy in most forms.
You should know that islamist nationalism is an oxymoron. If you're talking along the lines of the MB, it's ideology was based on the eventual abolishment of artificial borders and the creation of an "islamic union" of sorts- Islamists never had a strong nationalist connection.
>I always got the sense that was more culturally significant for Egyptians than British occupation
I'd disagree tbqh.
>socially mostly, Islamic democracy represented by the MB
I understand that that's how the status quo has been interpreted for a long time, but that's far from the "truth" (if there is to be just "one").
What a lot of people fail to distinguish between is the nuance between nationalists and Islamists. Whilst it appears to be obvious, it really isn't to most of the outside world. Nationalists believe in cultural conservatism, with some emphasis on western styles, yet maintain a relatively secular outlook on government. Sounds weird? Let me give you an example: 'Women can wear the clothes they wants, but can't have premarital sex. They should also try and avoid dressing too provocatively.'
In other words, this means that they are stringently against the imposition of social norms by government, but will do their best to impose them domestically. (Exceptions are big things like premarital sex, or homosexuality, or blasphemy which are seen as universally 'bad' there.) They want to enjoy the freedom to choose (within socially acceptable norms) nevertheless.
Islamists on the other hand, the MB included, do not see eye-to-eye on this. They're much more stringent in the application of these laws at home, and have repeatedly emphasized how they'd eventually like to apply that on a governmental level as well, which a lot of Egyptians are opposed to.
Not only that, but more importantly, they have a fundamental lack of nationalism, which after Zaghloul, El-Nahhas, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak has been the one sole variable unchanged and unreservedly believed in by the Egyptian populace (I'm a minority with my ideals there.), which loses them a lot of points with the Egyptian people. So much so, in fact, that they couldn't retain power.
So yeah, socially the majority might be somewhat traditional and conservative, but do not believe in the MB as a legitimate power - they look at them with disgust now, for the most part. People like to call out El-Sisi for 2013, but that doesn't mean that he's not on the same page as most Egyptians- they see him as a much more credibly source of power. I was in Egypt at the time of the elections, and they were legit.
>I really love hearing about ME history from middle easteners
s-stop it anon you're gonna make me blush
I don't know where you are from but wahabism isn't very big under us turks it could be the sufi influence on our culture though. Besides when the saudis run out of oil this shit will die with them.
Every time I say "Wahhabism" else where I get jumped on for using an "incorrect" term since Wahhabism is true Islam guided back from corrupted idolatry and grave worship. Is this correct?
I love the Nasreddin stories.
>A neighbour came to the gate of Mulla Nasreddin's yard. The Mulla went to meet him outside. "Would you mind, Mulla," the neighbour asked, "lending me your donkey today? I have some goods to transport to the next town." The Mulla didn't feel inclined to lend out the animal to that particular man, however. So, not to seem rude, he answered: "I'm sorry, but I've already lent him to somebody else." All of a sudden the donkey could be heard braying loudly behind the wall of the yard. "But Mulla," the neighbour exclaimed. "I can hear it behind that wall!" "Whom do you believe," the Mulla replied indignantly, "the donkey or your Mulla?"
Yes and no. When Saud first came to establish the state we know as Saudi Arabia, he had to have the backing of the Al-Wahhab family (namesake of Wahhabism) given the intricate tribal nature of Saudi Arabia. Whilst kings turned a blind eye to it in the past a lot for political reasons, it's started biting them in the ass to the extent where they're slowly [very] slowly acting against it.
>mfw I saw a hick at uni wearing a camo hat with "INFIDEL" stitched on the back
>mfw Muslims see Christians as 'People of the Book'; pagans are the infidels
>mfw a simple world history class would have taught him this
>mfw american education is slowly killing me
>They have certainly disbelieved ["kafara" - from the same root as kafir (infidel, non-believer)] who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary"...
Christians are infidels.
except for the problem that to radical terrorist muslims anybody who doesn't conform to sharia is an infidel, especially jews who don't deserve to exist, blame their stupidity to instigate it, not Americans' response
>mfw hicks exist in the muslim world (they exist in all nations)
>mfw 'People of the Book' and 'Infidel' are not mutually exclusive in Islam
>mfw Islam necessarily posits Christians as infidels because Christians do not believe that Muhammad is the messenger of God. (Though of course Christians are held in better esteem than pagans)
>mfw I confirmed this with an international Saudi student doing graduate studies at the college I attend.
>mfw I confirmed this by reading a Qu'ran.
>mfw I am a second your Arabic language student and with a little help read these things in the original Arabic script.
>mfw a simple world history class would have taught you that though
>mfw American idiots make our country the laughing stock of the world
>mfw these idiots are so naive and narcissistic they don't have the ability to self reflect and are literally incapable of understanding how foolish they are.
How long did it take you to read the Qu'ran? I have one sitting on my shelf but the size has kept me from diving in. I honestly want to understand Islam more but frankly I don't know where to begin.
I haven't read the whole thing yet. A lot of the words are archaic - even for standard Arabic. (which itself is pretty archaic)
Surprisingly (for me at least) many of the stories in the Qu'ran are taken out of the Christian bible and Jewish Torah in the same we the Christians took some stories from the Torah and bundled them in with Christianity.
Also some stories are not very religious but about rather boring or simple things such as: does a Muslim need to knock on a persons door before entering? can a Muslim steal from a non-Muslim? What is the punishment for stealing, cheating, etc. etc.?
I have a copy in English as well. With the English version as a guide I can get through most of the Arabic verses.
If you are interested in learning Arabic the Qu'ran is an extremely valuable tool in this after about the first year or so.
One day, Nasreddin Hodja borrowed his neighbour's cauldron. A few days later, when his neighbour came to collect it, Hodja returned the cauldron with a bowl in it.
When his neighbour saw the bowl, he asked, "What's this?"
Hodja answered, "Your cauldron has given birth!"
His neighbour was delighted to hear this and took the cauldron and the bowl from Hodja and went home.
A couple of weeks later, Hodja asked to borrow the cauldron again and his neighbour happily gave it to him.
However, when his neighbour came to collect the cauldron a few days later, Hodja said, "I'm very sorry but your cauldron passed away last night."
"Oh, come on," his neighbour said, "Cauldrons don't die. Stop fooling around and give it back to me."
Hodja replied, "Well if a cauldron can give birth then it can damn well die," and slammed the door shut in his neighbour's face.
This is God's body.
>>mfw these idiots are so naive and narcissistic they don't have the ability to self reflect and are literally incapable of understanding how foolish they are.
Honestly I think most of them are just pissed off at brown people for constantly crying about "muh oppression" and (non-Palestinian) Arabs particularly because they cry "muh colonialism muh oppression" yet they were slavers and colonizers par excellence.
You really think I'm a mudslim, muhammad ? Fuck off you false worshipper, traditional catholic is the only truth
>implying sufism is not the most widespread form of sunnism
>implying today's jihadist never get sufi influence
Are you saying large stable states around Israel is what Israel wants?
They have managed to get the Saudis to spend all that oil money against any other Middle East country that could have influence, yet don't get that everyone else hates them and would never follow them
Nasreddin hoca recently married, so his wife asked him in front of who she was permitted being unveiled .
Nasreddin hoca said: I don't care in front of who you take your veil off just don't do it in front of me . :D
It's already going
Since it has to kiss Royal arse it compromises
That's lead to the more hardcore salafists who find it easier to franchise especially amongst non Arabs
On the other side the royals are moving away due to many growing up in American schools etc and so willing to liberalise which a lot of Saudis also want
No it isn't
Since a whabbi cleric recently called for the demolition of the kabah due to its allowing men and women to pray together it's obvious that it's just reactionarism as a philosophy
>To what extent can a non-Muslim get into Sufism?
>I don't have much time for mainstream Islam but something about Sufism I find really appealing
If you want to kneel in front of clergymen, worship at a holy man's grave and request intercessory prayer from saints, you don't need Islam, you can just be a Catholic.
But if you want the real thing, you have to worship and kneel and bow before Allah and Allah only.
Wahhabis will be the dogs of Hell.
You rats are the reason people all over the world think Islam is a death cult that stifles human development. You will pay for turning them away from Islam.
You will be rubbed out by the God-fearing armies of al-Massih and al-Mahdi, Najdi scum.
>Abdullah bin Saud was captured along with two of his Wahhabi supporters. They were then sent to prison in Constantinople. Abdullah and his two followers were publicly beheaded for their crimes against holy cities and mosques. Prior to his execution, bin Saud, a Wahhabi who was forbidden to listen to music, was forced to listen to the lute.
thank you based Ottomans
What the flying fuck?
Bach is haram? Shostakovich is haram? What the fuck?
Also how the fuck are those white guys anything other than Sufi? How can a white man be a Salafi? Are they mentally ill?
WHAT THE FUCK??!!?!
I'm a European convert, not a member of any sect. The first time I smelled a whiff of Wahhabis/Salafis I knew they were Arab Supremacists using Islam as a cover.
Most of them have never actually read the Quran themselves, they just read commentaries from Wahhabi ideologues and leave it at that.
The easiest refutation on the subject of music is to ask them why birds sing if organised sound is haraam? The hadith that they refer to implies that degenerate music (mainly lyrically-wise) is the haraam music, not all music.
Also, I love Shostakovich's 5th. The finale is sublime.
>I'm a European convert
Interesting. To be honest I think the Muslim world needs European converts, like Hamza Yusuf
Proper beard care has just kind of gone downhill these past 200+ years in general across the world, sad to say. Any revival tends to be hijacked at the inception by so-called hipsters, euphoric fedora-tippers, and reddit MFA dadcore plebs.
Wahhabis need to realise that once upon a time, all of the Sahaba were what they'd derogatorily call "kuffar". I honestly think they have some minor form of solipsism whereby they believe that no one else has a right to become a Muslim. They've set themselves up as "gods".
To be honest, I was going to convert to Orthodoxy before I remembered I had always thought the trinity was nonsense, so I read the Qu'ran and found that it was entirely different to what I had imagined.
I agree, but there are other plenty non-European Muslims that disagree with the chauvinism of Wahhabism and what I'd term as "Cultural Islam". I don't generally agree with adopting an Arabic name and/or dress sense, but each to their own. The distinction between Islam and Arabic culture must be made clearer.
>quran says dont make stuff haram that isnt
>salafis make everything haram
i swear, salafis are as worst as the rafidah, they both deceive, look at them they are beautiful with their smiles and calmness, but you know they will behead you after they accuse of of being a murtad
>Is it true that the Saudi government is keeping Wahhabism alive?
They are afraid of the wahabbists and deal with them through a mixture of appeasement and redirection. They prefer to export whabbism so they don't have to deal with it themselves.
So how does that factor in to the whole judgement day, anyway? If most have a bad opinion of Islam due to its popularization by Wahhabis and stuff like the Rushdie affair, does that still count as "hearing the truth but rejecting it" or is there wiggle room?
If there's one good thing Wahhabism did, it's create an Islamic revival in countries that needed to reinforce their separate beliefs as Muslim from Wahhabis. Couple this with the media and you have a recipe for a blame game that Wahabbis can use to incite fear and hatred within Muslims; self-loathing to show how much more "innovative" society has become; and cultural dissonance for a lot of Muslim expatriates.
The Ottomans were smart. They held Hejaz and taught Wahhabis a lesson not once, twice but three consecutive times. That's why there have only been Wahhabi revivals from the Gulf. Nowhere else in the world has such an idea of following the salaf been propagated. It's blatant supremacism. But for the first time in history, without a caliph, Muslims are saying no.
This is our time, brothers.
It's anything but good, akhi. Whether you like Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah or not, he speaks extremely clear words here. Daesh's plot is to polarise world opinion, creating a war between Islam and all else.
They are also causing weak Muslims to question and ultimately forfeit their faith. They become convinced that this is the true Islam, and that being a Muslim is a bad thing. The fact that "Allahu Akbar" is now associated by almost all with suicide bombing or abject violence is testament to this.
A great analysis.
wahabis are an insult to islam, if you hear form them and hate islam because of them you are not completely in the blame, just learn about all sects of islam
ottomans knew how to deal with the wahabi hordes, you need to hang them form trees and let them dry in the desert
hezbollah did suicide bombings, too, this is why i fucking hate you taqiyya using fucks
wahabis (saudi arabia) and rafidah (iran) are both enemies of islam, their proxy wars have destroyed the middle east and killed us
>hezbollah did suicide bombings, too, this is why i fucking hate you taqiyya using fucks
And now they have an actual military that does a better job protecting Lebanese than the actual Lebanese military.
so? point is the guy is a liar and a hypocrite, one minute suicide bombers are martyrs the next they are kuffar going to hell for suicide (which is true)
hezbollah is simply a proxy used by iran to occupy lebanon, i have no interest in parties with political ties, depart from me o shayateen!
>wahabis (saudi arabia) and rafidah (iran) are both enemies of islam, their proxy wars have destroyed the middle east and killed us
Iranians are working to protect Christians, Sunnis, Shia, Druze, etc. from the wahhabis from the Gulf, the West, and israel.
If anything, Iran has the Middle East on its back. It is taking care of Syria and Iraq, and preventing the US and gulf states from continuing to slaughter innocents. There'd be peace the West and Gulf states were constantly trying to fuck over Iran (as they have with Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and to Iran before)
I can't speak for God on this, but they may be pardoned and they may not be.
It probably depends on the individual's willingness to insult God, His message, and His messenger; not to mention their actions against innocent Muslims. As a well-read Muslim, I don't care about their bark; only about the harm they are willing to cause civilians.
It is not a conspiracy theory to say that this is an intended distortion, as many in the West now literally believe that Islam advocates what it actually abhors. No true Muslim would advertise his religion as such, to invert its teachings. Some examples that I have seen have been:
Rape is allowed, stoning of rape victims, sex acts with young children, suicide bombings, forced conversion, enforced burqa, general mistreatment of women, slavery that isn't indentured servitude on contract, death for apostasy, forced marriage, honour killings, jihad is violent, 72 virgins canard, enforced circumcision, no fun allowed, music forbidden, etc.
Obviously humans would want nothing to do with an ideology that supports these things. It's madness.
iran is like saudi, they want to spread their version of shia islam and force it down our throats, they just want loyal dogs, they know stopped helping hamas, they created their own group in the west bank, harakat sabereen, they will soon kill Palestinians, calling them takfiris
i mean ties to a country with other motives, not a group created by the people
>hezbollah is simply a proxy used by iran to occupy lebanon
1. There's no occupation of Lebanon.
2. Even if there was, Iranian occupation is 100x better than anything else in the region
Assad may be a Shia, but he's an Arab Baathist. It is insinuated that he and his Persian allies respect each other in such regards. Same with Hezbollah. They were born out of fighting a de facto US occupation. They wouldn't let Persians take over Lebanon unless Ali himself led them.
>they want to spread their version of shia islam and force it down our throats
Armenian Christians and Syrian Sunnis/Druze seem to be immune to this.
>they will soon kill Palestinians, calling them takfiris
Are there not a lot of Takfiris in Palestine? Most are pro >F>S>A, pro Muslim Brotherhood, pro Al Nusra, and some even pro ISIS.
Palestinians have forgotten that they are Arabs. They turned their backs on the PLO. The people who started the movement for independence is now being ridiculed by Hamas! Palestinians will soon find that wahhabism under other names won't fill the void left by Baathism, and it most certainly won't defeat israel.
Pic related + communist Afghanistan, Saddam Iraq, Gaddafi Libya, and now Syria
Face it, the West will try to fuck anyone over who doesn't work with them.
>Are there not a lot of Takfiris in Palestine? Most are pro >F>S>A, pro Muslim Brotherhood, pro Al Nusra, and some even pro ISIS.
fsa and hamas are muslim brotherhood and they hate whabais, infact they kill eachother, see this is what i mean you call them takfiri and kill them ,wahabis call them kaffirs and kill them, ur all the same scum, most Palestinians voted for hamas
>>that is largely persian in culture and doesn't spread its ideology abroad like sunni fucks do.
it does try that shit in morocco and maurtania, they build shiite mosques like the salafists do
>assad claims to be secular but gets his help from the islamic republic of iran
That's because Hafez's Syria had big disagreements with Saddam's Iraq, and as such the two found a natural alliance during the Iran-Iraq War.
And he doesn't "claim" to be secular. He actually is secular. Christians, Druze, Shia, and Sunnis lived in peace under his rule. This isn't just Assad, it's Syrian culture.
The only people antagonized by the Syrian government are the Wahhabis. It's a capital punishment to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? They work to ruin the harmony that Syria has.
Assad's alliance with Iran is only because of history and his desire to restore harmony to Syria.
>fsa and hamas are muslim brotherhood and they hate whabais
If Islam and Christendom would agree to leave each other the fuck alone (or at least just not drag their neighbors into conflicts) then they'd probably end up shaping up in a few generations [read: someone or a coalition of someones fucking up the shit of everyone else to such an extent that peace is enforced] but with middle-easterners who want to extract wealth from the west on one side and that fact that western civilization is founded on the petrodollar on the other there's always - always - going to be some conflict of interest for the foreseeable future. The leaders and/or governments in the Islamic world that manage to hold on for more than a few decades are usually crafty cunts and very effective rulers, even when they're positively tyrannical by western standards.
Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood are both ironically funded by the US, and both serve the same purpose: destabilize the region. And both want Sharia for syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nODxF4jOjCs
Meanwhile, all three of the "shia" are both heavily antagonized by the US and are working to unite the region against Western and Saudi influence.
Also, the majority of Syria is Sunni. The majority of the Syrian Arab Army is, you guessed it, Sunni. It's not Sunni vs Shia, it's Syrians protecting their country and people from foreign Wahhabis invading at behest of the Gulf states and the US.
Iran has Sharia, true. Yet Hezbollah and the Syrian government don't enforce it, and never will. Plus, Iran has an arguably relaxed view on Sharia.
On the other hand: ISIS, FSA, Al Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar ash-Sham, Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union, Army of Mujahedeen, Sham Legion, and all the other Saudi-backed groups have proven that they want a strict interpretation of Sharia.
>le shia poorsians are plotting to kill us all!
Iran is trying to prevent the West doing to others what they did to the Persian people i.e. overthrowing stable governments and installing a puppet state.
The Saudis, protected and funded the West, don't want Iran to interfere. Therefore, the Saudis take any chance they get at screwing Iran. These actions are met with an entirely predictable response by Iran.
There is no shia conspiracy. You're a Wahhabi if you believe something that insane. A Shia cleric was executed only weeks ago along with other innocents for being against the Saudi state. Let's not forget the Shias being targeted by ISIS and other "muslim brotherhood" groups in Syria.
If you continue to hold such beliefs after this, then you are a perfect example as to why every muslim who has been dubbed "Sword of Islam" has fought other muslims.
I understand the instinct to search for good guys in a complex situation such as middle eastern politics. It's something called the narrative bias.
The simple truth is that the Iranians are cunts, we're cunts, the Saudis are cunts, and daesh are genocidal cunts.
Hi, I'm not sure how I wondered to /his/ and am unfamiliar with a lot of these terms, but I want to learn. Most of what I have been told is from American media-- that ISIS is pure evil who hates our freedoms and wants to suicide bomb or civilians to death, but I know is traipsing around in Desert Storm and the early 2000's didn't help anything.
So basically what I'm saying is: is the situation too complex for a recap from one of you people with a different perspective? And, are we seen as (or just are we) the bad guys?
ISIS are unquestionably the bad guys.
Generally, whenever a Muslim group tries to establish a caliphate, they immediately revert to the morality of the 6th century.
There is a reason that "getting medieval on your ass" is a threat.
See also, the armed Islamic group in the 90s, the taliban, and boko haram.
To answer to American culpability in all this, the US set off this particular regional shit storm by invading Iraq. Everything the US has done since has been aimed at cleaning up that mess.
When the US is hellbent on destroying Iran, some deals to have to be made.
I have two main ways of viewing the situation of the Middle East: who is supporting/supported by the Arab Nationalists and who is supporting/supported by the few remaining Christians of the region
Both the Nationalists and the Christians have almost full solidarity with Hezbollah and Iran. Armenians are treated well in Iran, and Iran has always supported Armenia and the Assyrian Christians. Hezbollah also protects the Christians of Lebanon and helps the Syrian Arab Army protect the Christians of Syria.
Iran has stood side-by-side with Syria since its founding. And I personally see Syria as the lawful good of the Arab Nationalists countries. Unfortunately, Syria is the last Baathist state and the harmony ushered in by this nationalism is being killed by Saudi/US-backed Wahhabis. However, Iran is working hard to keep Syria alive. Thus, they are helping to keep and even restore Arab Nationalism.
>So basically what I'm saying is: is the situation too complex for a recap from one of you people with a different perspective?
The middle-east is generally okay when strong rulers keep radicals in line for practical reasons but the west (and not just the US and/or Israel, contrary to the popular narrative) has been knocking those rulers over for various and sundry reasons and this has led to radicals stepping up to fill the created power vacuum for their own gain.
>Everything the US has done since has been aimed at cleaning up that mess.
That depends on how /pol/ you want to get about it, as the current situation seems to describe the Yinon Plan to a T.
Using ethnic minorities to prop up a regime is nothing new.
Its the position the copts played in Egypt.
You should be wary of seeing any political policy that any actor in the region pursues as anything other than a marriage of convenience.
As for Iran being a force for secular nationalism, it's called the Islamic Republic of Iran for a reason.
Their foreign policy has always been Sunni domination wherever possible. They are simply another sectarian actor, and one that's been openly attacking the US long before the wahabists showed up on anyone's radar.
>oppression of Assad
Funny how only Islamists feel "oppressed" by his rule.
The Dream of Baghdad...