Posted on 04/02/2011 7:41:16 PM PDT by george76
Thank you for that. However do note that you’re talking about the overthrown King Idris from the 60s. This does not square with the rebels of toda
And I am humbled that you may think that I understand it a teensy bit better than you (though there are far wiser folks than us both)
My opinion of the majority of fighters is:
In Libya definitely NOT Iran.
There have been prior reports of Iranian military along border regions in the southern part of Libya. I, regrettably do not have a link, yet recall these reports. In your opinion, do the reports appear to have no basis in fact?
I realize my question appears loaded, and I am picking on only one aspect of your prior post. I assure you this is not the case, and am only seeking an opinion.
Firstly, the original “sunni caliphate” (circa 7th century AD) & their followers were largely bedouin, desert-dwelling Arabs. They had little to no “luxury” to speak of. They in fact lived a very simple, primitive life. Once these Arabs & their Caliph Umar (Omar) attacked the Sassanid Empire, and defeated them, they then took over the luxury & opulence that the Persians already had. In typical Arab fashion, they looted many national Persian treasures, & destroyed others.
Later, under the Arab Abbassid Caliphs, who then ruled Iran & Iraq, during traditional Persian-Zoroastrian celebrations such as Mehrgan & Norooz, the Abbassids had the audacity to sit on a throne like previous Persian Kings and receive gifts. So, one can suggest that the "love of luxury" you mention by Sunnis is in fact a pre-Islam Persian influence. Remember Iran between 7th century AD & late 16th century AD (approx. 1000 yrs) was by majority a Sunni country. Thereafter, Iranians were, once again, forcibly converted, this time, to Shia Islam under the Turkic Safavid dynasty (circa 16th century AD).
Secondly, although Iranians remained mostly Sunni until the 16th century, Shi’ite communities did exist both in Iran as we know it today as well as in Iraq, S. Arabia, etc.. But, they were Arabs not Iranians (Persians). Nevertheless, Sunni Islam has always been the dominant sect and often has managed to have control even in places where Sunnis were outnumbered by Shi’ites (today this includes many of the major oil-producing areas of the ME even in Saudi Arabia. Shi’ites make up the majority population in key oil-producing regions). A key to the Sunni strategy of domination, within their domain, has been excluding Shiites from the military and bureaucracy.
Historically, the Shi’ites have been the underclass, often forced to do manual labor and denied their fair share of state resources. Therefore, the sense of victimhood and being the underdog has been & still seems to be quite strong among Shi’ites. A popular Shi'ite saying goes: Every day is Ashura and every city is Karbala. The Shi’ites way has traditionally appealed to those who were oppressed. So, this may partly explain what you mentioned as “simplicity”. As for “piety”, I can only point at my post #49 & the fact that Shi’ites consider themselves related to Mohammad through Shi’ite Imams. In Iran at least, this is particularly the case with those Mullahs who wear a Black Turban. They claim to be direct descendants of Mohammad thru one or more of the 12 Shia Imams, and call themselves “Seyyed”. However, that doesn’t necessarily make them more “pious” than the Sunnis.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire didn’t reach its height of glory so to speak until 15th/16th century. By that time, they were already influenced by the Byzantines, the Persians, and later the Europeans, especially royalty & aristocracy.
So, I'd say, simplicity & luxury are not strictly a Shia vs Sunni difference. I’d say one has to factor in other outside influences. I often read and hear how “Arabs” contributed so much to “Islamic” Architecture, literature, poetry, paintings and generally what has been coined as the “Islamic Civilization” particularly in the middle ages in the ME and North Africa (even in Southern Spain for instance). During the first four caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali and the Ummayad caliphate (who rule Iran soon after Arab-Islam conquest), there was no such thing as the “Islamic Renaissance”.
Those who don’t know may be surprised to discover, for example, the extent of influence Pre-Islamic Iranian (Persian) Empires such as Parthians (Arascids) & Sassanids had on Architecture in Iran & beyond. the spiral fire temple tower is the architectural precedent of the Great Mosque of Samarra. The round domes we see on top of mosques in fact dates back to Sassanid architecture. Same applies to vaulted-hall eyvans (iwan); even Taj-Mahl in India very much has pre-Islamic architectural style. You can view some pics & background info: Sassanid Architecture -- vaulted-hall iwan -- Persian Architecture
As for Khamenei, he is a “Seyyed” (note he wears a black turban). But, he is an ex-beggar & hoarder, hardly qualifies as human. He certainly is not a “Grand” Ayatollah. Even his ‘qualifications’ as an “Ayatollah” meaning sufficiently well-versed in Shia 12ers theology & per Khomeini’s doctrine has been questioned. His appointment as the “Supreme Leader” was a political move aided by his friend back then, Rafsanjani (another self-professed ayatollah) whose real lastname is Bahremani. Prior to 1979 revolution in Iran, Rafsanjani was businessman. He later put on a robe & a turban and asked his associates & friends to call him “hojat ol eslam” (proof of Islam) - *lol*… (btw, I’m serious).
Then again, personally I believe most if not all mullahs should be dispensed with, at least in Iran. But, to give him the lofty & extravagant title of Grand Ayatollah helps promote an image of "holiness & legitimacy", for some people at least, which he & his kind do Not deserve. Iran currently is full of self-professed & otherwise "Ayatollahs". Historically, they’ve been like vultures. I've said before that Qom would be a good place to start the *reconstruction* process.
To the reports of Iranian military along border regions in the southern part of Libya -- we're talking about the border with Chad. Now the Chadians have signed a treaty with Ghadaffi -- what do they gain if he is kicked out and some new pan-Arab guys come and demand the northern part of Chad back? They lose.
Furthermore, how exactly does Iran get it's military from Iran to there without anyone knowing about it?
Finally, what use would the Iranian military personnel be to the rebels? It's not like they are exceptionally sophisticated or well trained. They had a stalemate against a vastly outnumbered Saddam's Iraq because they used young men as canon fodder. They have outdated fighter aircraft and have no tactics as they haven't fought any serious war since the Iran-Iraq war (80-88) and don't know anything about pitched battles for a far longer time. They may be able to provide crazies to the Hizbullah, but what use are Iranis in the hottest deserts of Libya? Worse than useless.
Wonderful post!
Yep, Hassan & Hussein were brothers.
Apart from the last 3 caliphs who were murdered by other moslems. Most if not all shia imams were either beheaded or poisoned too (except Mahdi - yrs ago I heard from some moslem Iranians that Mahdi, once he appears, is scheduled to be killed as well). No wonder the tradition of spilling blood, death, destruction, misery & mourning is so strong in Islam in general. All one has to do is look at the Islamic lunar calendar in Iran.
Thanks! tho it had one “at” too many in the opening sentence.
W/ all the talk about beheadings & stuff I won’t be able to sleep well tonite!
I know there's a lot of talk of Iran being involved in Libya but I really can't see what they can gain from being involved in a Sunni country so far away from their sphere of influence -- can you?
Also, they have a lot more to think about in their own neighborhood.
Thank you for responding.
The absolute certainty of having the truth always appears elusive for Africa and the Middle East. My knowledge of this area has always been lacking. The posts by yourself and odds always gives me pause to search further. My Thanks to Both of You. If either of you care to ping me to other enlightening areas of discussion in the future, please do. Thanking you both again, for any consideration, to giving me a future ping.
likewise — I would appreciate pings from both of you to help me learn more. Not necessarily on Libya. it has been good interacting with you both.
no-to-illegals: no problem, you’re very welcome. I think it’s good to share/exchange thoughts on some of these more controversial topics/subjects.
cronos: I don’t know what to exactly make of the Iranian regime & their possible influence in Libya. So far, I believe, the proverbial pandora’s box has been opened. And I feel that we will see a Major war in the ME & North Africa region in not too distant future. It’ll naturally & eventually affect us all in the West.
Time difference & I have to get some ZZZzzs now... Have a good day.
How come that Shia Muslims follow Al Qa'ida orders?
It is as if Protestants followed Pope's orders.
I have never ever heard believable explanation of this puzzle.
There have been various reports of Bin Laden & family in and out of Iran, and that Iranians and the Bin Laden faction of AQ have an ‘agreement.’ (Maybe it’s the money).
Libya, while not now Shia, nevertheless create a Mediterranean ‘box’ to play in for Iran, if Qadaffi leaves. This would make for (perhaps) more events at sea.
I am curious about what is going on in points south of N Africa. I don’t know much about it, except what I read from missionaries.
Thank you for this detailed expansion of my preliminary thoughts.
Well... It's like this... One group insists upon breathing and the other finds this behavior to be unacceptable. Of course, what unites them is their shared hatred of non-Muslims who insist upon breathing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.