Arabic Coffee shop
- Thread starter The SC
- Start date
Sarhang
Registered Member
I have to agree with you about one thing. There are a lot of Pakistanis here, especially based in the West, UK primarily, from what I have seen, who are really hateful and ignorant about events not only in the Arab world but also Iran. Many of the insults derive from those people indeed. However we should not brush an entire population of over 200 million people with this overall small minority - but it is indeed very annoying behavior.
I agree with most of what you have written, and I also believe that it corresponds to the reality on the ground in Iran. You also seem to agree with many of my points.
However it would be interesting to hear your views about the forceful and bloody Safavid conversion from Sunni to Shia Islam in Iran.
Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Based on Islamic history it seems obvious to me that Sunni Islam fitted more with the Persian soul and core beliefs than what latter followed.
I have even seen Zoroastrian historians and Sunni Persian scholars and historians talk about this. I think that even numerous books have been written about this topic by Iranians.
It is interesting to think about because I believe that the entire dynamic in the region and history would have been drastically different.
Anyway I admire the Iranian Sunnis greatly and I am interested in them. Also because we tend to have close relations with them - modern day as well as historical.
PERSIAN SUNNI DA'WAH, SHI'ISM & IRAN
BOOK RECOMMENDATION: THE HISTORY OF ISMAIL SAFAVI BY DR. KHONJI
11/04/2024 ADMIN
Dr. Amir Hussein Khonji, may Allah have mercy upon him.
‘The History of Ismail Safavi – The Bringers of Shiism’ (Persian: تاریخ شاه اسماعیل صفوی – ارمغان آوران تشیع) is a scholarly work authored by historian Dr. Hussein Khonji, hailing from Hormozgan, Iran, from the town on Khonj. This comprehensive piece delves into the history of the anti-Sunni Iranian Safavid dynasty (16th – 18th CE), shedding light on their nefarious deeds and numerous atrocities perpetrated against Iranians, particularly Persian Sunnis who bore the brunt of the Safavid regime’s oppression.
Providing primary historical accounts, the book stands as a vital piece of literature. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated into English (here is an alternative book in English); however, an Arabic version exists.
Original Persian version:
Arabic translation:
This is an in-depth historical study of the life and actions of the first Safavid king, Ismail I, as well as the consequences of Safavid rule in Iran. The author’s aim is to thoroughly examine the impact of Ismail’s ideas and actions, as well as those of his associates, on Iran’s historical path and to analyse their outcomes. To achieve this objective, the author places particular emphasis on the psychological aspects of the individuals involved.
Dr. Khonji’s book on the Safavids should be made primary literature in every advanced Islamic course and university in the Muslim world since the crimes of Shiism against Sunnis in Iran are too often brushed under the carpet by Shia clerics and Iranian nationalists (who interestingly are both united in their veneration of Ismail I) alike.
This is why most Iranians are not even aware of the crimes of the Safavids, as they are exposed to whitewashed and glorified narratives about the Safavids. While Shia clerics in Iran venerate Ismail I for his championing of Shiism (ruthless suppression of Sunnism), and Iranian nationalists applaud him for his perceived ‘unification’ of Iran, Dr. Khonji offers a more nuanced and critical perspective on this tumultuous period in Iranian history and leaves no room for doubt about the heretical and criminal nature of the Safavid dynasty, primarily Ismail I.
Khonji’s book stands as a pinnacle in unveiling the gruesome saga of the Safavid state’s rise to power, illustrating its ruthless tactics in converting Sunni Iran into a blood-soaked Safavid domain, where the massacre and annihilation of (one million innocent Sunnis) stain its history! Within its pages lie irrefutable evidence and meticulously verified historical accounts!
It is for that reason why it is easier to get hold of Reza Khan or his sons’ biography in Iran, where they are portrayed favorably, than the book by Dr. Khonji. Dr. Khonji’s work simply exposes the truth, unveiling those who forcibly converted much of Iran to Shiism and their ideological heirs, the Shia clergy who have been ruining Iran since the dawn of the Safavids.
BOOK RECOMMENDATION: The History of Ismail Safavi by Dr. Khonji
‘The History of Ismail Safavi – The Bringers of Shiism’ (Persian: تاریخ شاه اسماعیل صفوی – ارمغان آوران تشیع) is a scholarly work authored by historian Dr. Hussein Khonji, h…ebnhussein.com
This is old history but this event is indirectly what put the current Mullah's in power and indirectly fueled the widespread influence the Mullah's and Shia clergy in Iran have enjoyed since this Safavid policy.
Most Iranians (except the usual cultists) view the forced Safavid conversion of Iran as a disaster. It has brought only death, destruction, and dark days to our country. I dont see a single benefit for Iran.
Lets hope the future is bright for the whole Middle East.
_Arabia_
Trusted Member
I personally have no problem with some Iranians converting to Zoroastrianism and leaving this Wilayat al-Faqih nonsense because from what I have seen - they seem more on the correct path in terms of monotheism and worshipping God/Allah (swt). They also don't bother anybody in the region. Let alone atheists, agnostics and others.
Simply put in an ideal world, whoever will rule Iran in the future, monarchy, republic or whatever, we cannot afford this insanity to continue for another 50 years. Other countries in the region, KSA included, leadership as well, are not saints, but I would argue that nobody has been anywhere close to causing this much completely unnecessary instability, proxy support and other nonsense. Other than Israel/Zionists who are another topic entirely and who are a reality now (Western imposed and supported - now nuclear) since 1948 - but they should also calm down and either accept the 1967 UN borders or merge into a single state with equal rights for everyone. Another annoying rivalry that has destroyed the region and prevents many ordinary Arabs and Jews (20% of all Israelis are Arabs and 2/3 of all Israeli Jews are Arab Jews or partial Arab Jews) from living normally with each other and helping grow the region. I would argue that the main fault here lies with the Jews/Israelis without a doubt.
The biggest victims have been Iranians themselves. What is even a testament to this regime is that they have managed to turn a large segment of Iranians against Islam due to their policies (even though I will argue that their beliefs and practices have very little to do with Islam) and against religion altogether although this is a worldwide trend, especially among young people.
However I personally believe that as humans we need to humble ourselves and always remember that we are merely temporary guests on this planet and that we cannot think to highly of ourselves and that there is a creator and that people will be judged by their good and bad deeds in their life once we die.
I am interested/have a weak spot for Sunnis in Iran (regardless of ethnic group) because we have had very good and cordial people to people relations and there is no hatred among us at all. I have never witnessed this at least. As I told many Sunni Persians escaped to Arabia after and during the Safavid period.
That is not to say that Shias are bad - most are good people as well, Arabs included, but unfortunately due to some of their core beliefs - they are prone to constantly engage in division. We have seen even in Bahrain that some locals are more loyal to Khamenei than their own country and people. It is a very strange phenomenon that I do not see among any other Muslims. Sunni Muslims globally don't worship any Muslim leadership etc. because we do not tend to worship clerics. In Islam clerics are not to be worshipped - they are just people of knowledge and guidance. We also don't worship any special lineage.
If you look at Islamic history all of the most famous Iranian scholars, scientists etc. were Sunni Muslims. I don't intend to make any Iranians uncomfortable since most are Shias (at least by heritage) but I believe that far too few Iranians even remember this part of their history which lasted almost 1000 years and how it was changed. I have also seen great animosity towards Sunnis - even those that do not view Shias as enemies or negatively. Which I personally do not either although I have clear theological differences with their beliefs.
Anyway let us forget that for a moment, just wanted to hear an Iranian perspective about this from a non-Iranian regime support. Because from an outsider, especially an Arab, this part of Iran's history and this segment of the Iranian population (that officially is only 15% but I believe that it is much higher) is not insignificant.
Another good video:
I will tell you that their Arabic pronunciation is 100 times better than the Mullah regime clerics that claim Arab ancestry. Another paradox.
Last edited:
Sarhang
Registered Member
Several good points from you. I agree.
But as you yourself correctly stated, religion is kind of dead in Iran thanks to the mullahs policies.
I dont know where these animals came from but they truly destroyed our country over the past five decades. Nothing in Iran has been left standing. In my view they are even worse than the Mongol invasion: they came, looted, killed, and now they are in the process of getting kicked out.
This is a black era in our history. It has destroyed 2–3 generations. It has pushed our people to the brink so much that we are even cheering for a foreign army to come and rescue us.
All I can say is this: Sunni, Shia, agnostic, Zoroastrian whatever you are in a future Iran keep your faith at home and dont harass others. Use cranes to build the country instead of hanging some young person for insulting a mullah. (Insulting Khamenei = mohareb, according to them.)
Religion should be personal. And as you said, thats already happening worldwide, and Iran is no exception.
I hope that day is not far.
Lastly, to conclude this subject regarding the Arab invasion and the Muslim conquest of our nation (which I know you are curious about): from our perspective, thats history now. None of the Arabs alive today had anything to do with it so there’s no reason to stay enemies over it. We ourselves invaded and conquered many nations. Empires come and go.
What matters now is not destroying the lives of younger generations. Its time to drop the hate and improve our nations.
I hope our conversation can encourage others -even in a small way— to choose brotherhood and progress instead of staying guarded all the time. We will all be dead in a few decades so its not worth living in constant hostility.
But the only people who dont seem to grasp this are the usual suspects: heavily religious, indoctrinated people.
_Arabia_
Trusted Member
@Sarhang
To change our topic of discussion a bit. Who do you think should rule Iran if the current regime is removed or collapses? If you are a monarchist - do you believe that Reza Pahlavi should rule? If so, what will happen with his successor since he has no sons? What about previous dynasties in Iran - do they not have a bigger claim to the throne? For instance the Qajars even though they have a bad reputation? Or what about previous dynasties? I only believe that the Pahlavi's and Qajars have any documented living descendants. Maybe I am wrong here. I think that the Safavids for instance have died out a long time ago.
And if any type of democracy in Iran will be implemented for the first time, from the outside it would look like quite some challenge given the neighborhood and the fact that there are so many different factions, ethnic groups, visions etc. I also don't believe that our region is anywhere close to begin ready for a genuine democracy - it would likely evolve into a kleptocracy or oligarchy. Democracies in the West also have a hard time. In general I feel that the world is moving towards uncertain times and despite the technological and economic progress - far from everything is moving in the right direction. There is a lot of disillusionment among ordinary people across the world.
The Iranians also seem deeply divided among themselves - in particular the secular and religious factions and the pro-Pahlavi and anti-Pahlavi factions. I have seen some really hateful discussions among them online.
Anyway for the sake of the region and ordinary Iranians - it would be most ideal if changes could occur peacefully but unfortunately it looks like the Mullah's have once again pushed Iran and the region into a war - not saying that Israel and the US are without any blame here but they could have handled the past almost 50 years completely differently as we have discussed - and we would not be where we are today. For that they have the full responsibility. Unfortunately in this forum it is almost impossible to criticize this regime or have any serious discussions without being silenced, labelled all types of names and what not. Personally I am only interested in the opinions of Iranians in this regard but as you wrote it seems that the majority commenting here are not Iranians to begin with.
To change our topic of discussion a bit. Who do you think should rule Iran if the current regime is removed or collapses? If you are a monarchist - do you believe that Reza Pahlavi should rule? If so, what will happen with his successor since he has no sons? What about previous dynasties in Iran - do they not have a bigger claim to the throne? For instance the Qajars even though they have a bad reputation? Or what about previous dynasties? I only believe that the Pahlavi's and Qajars have any documented living descendants. Maybe I am wrong here. I think that the Safavids for instance have died out a long time ago.
And if any type of democracy in Iran will be implemented for the first time, from the outside it would look like quite some challenge given the neighborhood and the fact that there are so many different factions, ethnic groups, visions etc. I also don't believe that our region is anywhere close to begin ready for a genuine democracy - it would likely evolve into a kleptocracy or oligarchy. Democracies in the West also have a hard time. In general I feel that the world is moving towards uncertain times and despite the technological and economic progress - far from everything is moving in the right direction. There is a lot of disillusionment among ordinary people across the world.
The Iranians also seem deeply divided among themselves - in particular the secular and religious factions and the pro-Pahlavi and anti-Pahlavi factions. I have seen some really hateful discussions among them online.
Anyway for the sake of the region and ordinary Iranians - it would be most ideal if changes could occur peacefully but unfortunately it looks like the Mullah's have once again pushed Iran and the region into a war - not saying that Israel and the US are without any blame here but they could have handled the past almost 50 years completely differently as we have discussed - and we would not be where we are today. For that they have the full responsibility. Unfortunately in this forum it is almost impossible to criticize this regime or have any serious discussions without being silenced, labelled all types of names and what not. Personally I am only interested in the opinions of Iranians in this regard but as you wrote it seems that the majority commenting here are not Iranians to begin with.
maxpane
Elite Member
thats an absolute relief for us.Thank you KSA
Sarhang
Registered Member
Pahlavi seems to have a good reputation in Iran. And as we saw in the early January protests, millions called his name in the streets. Not a single person shouted any other name. We didnt hear any Qajar, MEK, leftist, etc. names. They have no base in Iran.
I myself am a Pahlavi supporter, like millions of other Iranians, because both the late Mohammad Reza and the great Reza Shah took over a backward, pest-ridden country from the incompetent Qajars and turned it into a regional power within a few decades. They were true patriots. May God bless their souls.
On top of that, Iran is traditionally the land of kings. We have had monarchs since ancient times, and many of their names are remembered with respect except a few incompetent leaders.
It’s not only this forum, brother. Its like a sick madness has engulfed the entire world trying to tell us Iranians what to choose. The leftists in the US are the worst. They are perhaps the best friends of the mullahs, and they are sad about what’s happening.
The only people who are truly happy about it are Iranians, our Arab neighbors, and the rest of the freedom loving people in the world.
Both you and I come from the Middle East and we know the usual 'Zionist agent' talk is an expired concept. I dont even come to this forum often—most Iranians are on the app X. Thats our usual gathering point.
But I thought it wouldnt be a bad idea to come here and share my thoughts on whats happening.
_Arabia_
Trusted Member
I am not surprised about that as this is the most recent non-Mullah dynasty in Iran and many living Iranians still remember it unlike long gone Qajars let alone past ones.
Actually KSA/Arab/Iran under Pahlavi ties were rather good and cordial. There was a bit of regional rivalry but nothing really big and mostly with Iraq and related to the the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The late Shah visited KSA a few times and various Saudi Arabian kings as well. There was economic cooperation and pilgrims visited both countries as well as tourism. In the 1970's Iran was even a popular destination for Arabs from Arabia. Also given the close people to people ties in many ways. As you probably already know Eastern Arabia, Iraq and Iran, in particular southern Iran have had millennia old people to people ties, trade ties, cultural ties and people movements. This is how millions of Arabs ended up in Iran (many now fully Persianized and do not even know about their origins fully) and how large numbers of Sunni Persians, Baloch, Lurs and others ended up in Eastern Arabia and Iraq.
The biggest mistake the Shah did was not to deal with Mullah's like Khomeini and for stupid Arab leaders to welcome him (in Kuwait and Iraq) before he left for France.
Due to events since 1979 many people have forgotten about this or chose to ignore it.
I also recently learned that the right hand man of the late Shah was of Arab origin - from a noble family that used to rule parts of South Khorasan.
He was a prime minister for a short while too.
Asadollah Alam - Wikipedia
Persian source:
خاندان خزیمه علم - ویکیپدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد
He was apparently one of the richest Iranians during the Shah.
Also we have to ignore the nonsense claims of "Western puppet" etc. because both KSA and Iran worked closely and even were behind the oil embargo in the 1970's. The Shah was also becoming openly critical of the Zionists and the West. Much like the Arab leaders already were. So it was a balancing act just like today but the priority looked to be to improve Iran as a country. He probably committed a lot of mistakes as well otherwise he would not have been removed but that is a different story. Fact of the matter is/was that KSA/Arabs and Iran had much greater relations and we did not see much of this nonsense that we have seen since 1979 and Iranians back then were majority Shia and more religious than today.
Unfortunately there is a disease among many Muslims and people from our region (non-Muslims too) that do not understand geopolitics at all or the "long game" and are only focused on cheap slogans and propaganda. For instance we have stupid people cheering for Hezbollah shooting firecrackers at Israel with 0 or 2-3 casualties and in return 100's of civilians are dying and entire villages and cities are burned to the ground. They also believe that backward and weak militias will change anything on the ground. The same militias that have nothing to do with Islam but are corrupt cults who use oppression, terrorism, drug smuggling and other non-Islamic behaviors to reach and cement power. Hezbollah is a great example of how to destroy a country (Lebanon) although they are not the sole reason for this but a large one.
To such an degree that their recent evacuation from South Lebanon was met with criticism from other Lebanese people who did not want to host them and do not trust them.
Have no illusions majority of Arab Shias are completely against this insanity as well and the actions of their terrorist militia cults and the Iranian regime. It is a minority among them that helps destroy their reputation.
A Kuwaiti guy was in Egypt, and just minutes before boarding the plane, they told him the flights to Kuwait Airport were suspended. After two days, he decided to head to Riyadh, saying, "At least I'll feel like I'm among my own people." And in Riyadh, it's not strange at all—he's in his second homeland. He found the solution to getting back home
Last edited:
mythbuster
SpeedLimited
Marhaba Arabia , you got a shahprast majoosi under your wings...why don't you go back to Hammurabi or even better to the epic of Gilgamesh... seeds of monotheism were sown there
_Arabia_
Trusted Member
I was being polite in telling an Iranian that I as a Saudi Arabian and Arab Muslim do not have any intentions to force Islam upon Iranians or anybody else.
Yes, those are Semitic people from the Arab world that you have mentioned. I would argue that Hanifs were the first recorded monotheists.
Hanif - Wikipedia
Some of the first Egyptian religions too can make such a claim.
Great Hymn to the Aten - Wikipedia
We Muslims have our beliefs and consider Abrahamic religions to have a special standing compared to polytheistic religions. However we have no animosity towards individuals who may belief in Zoroastrianism for instance. Some argue that it is a monotheistic, albeit dualistic, religion as well. In fact in pre-Islamic Arabia Zoroastrianism was followed by a minority of local people along with Hanifs, Christians, Jews and Arabian polytheistic beliefs that were/are closely related to other pre-Abrahamic Semitic religions (Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Caanite, Levantine etc.)
In fact those are the world's oldest recorded religions.
Ancient Semitic religion - Wikipedia
And if a Zoroastrian firmly beliefs in the oneness and supreme being of one single Creator/God/Allah (SWT) his core belief (Tawhid) is closer to a person who pretends to be a Muslim but worships graves, dead people, prays to imaginary infallible Imams, supplicates to those people/entities other than God.
In other words I was saying that us ordinary Muslim Arabs have no problem with whatever Iranians chose to believe in in the future, albeit we hope that they will remain majority Muslim (I do at least) as they have for more than half of their recorded history as a state/entity. Talking specifically about Persians (majority ethnic group here). Not including long dead/extinct Elamites.
BTW even though there are no any Arabian polytheists anymore (although there are a very tiny minority of people who want to revive this after leaving Islam), in this day and age, as people, we would have to accept them even if we do not agree with them as we cannot force Islam upon anyone by force. A belief must be rooted in genuine conviction not due to personal interests, opportunism, geopolitics and what not. This is why you see my focused on what I consider to be clear theological violations of core Islamic principles within certain Shia beliefs and sects. Not out of hatred but out of concern for people who follow those false/distorted beliefs and also because a minority of the same people have been a cause of fitnah in the region - I do not need to mention various militia cults etc. And yes, there are also misguided people among Sunni Muslims and sects - for instance whatever Daesh and similar groups followed is as deviant.
And this is my sincere belief. People can call me whatever, I will not deviate from Tawhid in terms of personal beliefs but I will never force this belief upon anyone by force. I will at most pray for people who I consider misguided and help educate them with core Islamic beliefs. I gain nothing personal from this whether monetary or anything but I can say that I did my little part in raising awareness. And this might seem like I am some crazy religious person - which is not the case, I tend to keep religious beliefs to myself but whenever people ask or want to engage, I will not hold back.
Last edited:
_Arabia_
Trusted Member
Seems like a very competent politician. I do not know him that well but he seems to have done a good job for Turkiye. He also has developed close ties to neighboring Arab counterparts and KSA-Turkiye relations have only been improving during his tenure so I have only positive things to say.
Although I have to admit that I don't follow Turkish politics (domestic) that closely and I do not take any party's sides etc. I never do that in non-Arab nations. Simply because this is not my business - I can have my own personal opinions etc. and also because my knowledge is limited due to the linguistic barrier.
In general I only wish the best for Turkiye and its people and my fathers sides of the family have partial ancestral ties to Turkiye (a few generations back intermarriages with Circassian/Turkic people from Istanbul during Ottoman times - like quite a few millions of Saudi Arabians - in particular from Hejaz in fact) and most Turks that I know and have interacted with - also during my visits to Istanbul (sadly I have never visited Hatay, Southeastern Turkiye or visited the areas were Turkish Arabs live - I want to visit the city of Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) for instance) and also Trabzon and a longer stay in Antalya/Alanya. Many interesting areas of Turkiye that I have not visited yet at all. For instance I have never visited the East, central Turkiye etc. Or the West coast (Bodrum etc.) other than Istanbul but that is more northwest.
I also like the fact that it seems, at least on paper, that KSA and Turkiye is starting to develop some kind of semi-strategic relationship at least militarily and economically and there also seems to be a political alignment when it comes to Sudan, Yemen, Syria (most importantly), Israel's role in the region etc.
In general I believe that it is high time of the region - in particular in the Arab world as well, that those artificial barriers needs to be broken and closer economic, military, political etc. ties will be developed. I have said this 1 million times but if Europeans who killed 60 million of each other between just WW1 and WW2 could unite and create the EU (even though it is not perfect - no political organization is let alone of this size), stop most wars and help unite the Eastern Europe and Warsaw Pact (most of them) countries after 1989-1991, the region should also wake up and work towards mutually beneficial organizations and ties.
For instance the Arab League predates the UN which was founded in 1945 right after WW2 changed the world forever. However what this organization has accomplished is very little and that is a disgrace and a shame and a testament to what I wrote needs to change for the better.
Some very quick not very coherent thoughts from me. Will have to leave for now.
Sinan
Registered Member
Thanks,
Hakan Fidan is our minister of foreign affairs.
When Erdoğan first come Ahmed Davutoğlu was our foreign minister. He was an Islamist and Romantic. He couldn't make good decisions. He was a mediocre man.
After Erdogan's autocratic tendencies grew and he appointed Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, he was a yes-man for Erdoğan. Basically, every decision was made by Erdogan, he just executed. In that time frame Turkey got into fight with everyone. Relations with almost every country soured. Hakan Fidan was the head of the intelligence agency at that time (since 2010) at that time he started to appear in Erdogan's delegation in his foreign visits. Then Erdoğan made him the foreign minister in 2023.
Basically, he was never a politician, always the statesman.
After he come to power, he begin to resolve disputes and relations go to a positive direction with almost every country. I think, Erdoğan after seeing his success as the head of MIT, entrusted foreign policy to him. Erdoğan doesn't talk on foreign affairs as much as he used to.
I never listened to previous foreign ministers speeches but i love to listen to him. He is very realistic and rational.
There was a time when Erdoğan tried to act like the leader of the muslim countries. He meddled into Arab affairs, choose sides in the Arab world, supported Muslim Brotherhood etc... tried to dominate the region and it back fired. Turkey's relations worsened with regional countries.
Hakan Fidan changed that completely. As i listened to him, he basically says regional countries in the middle-east shouldn't compete over dominance but should co-operate. So, that they can take decisions for the region together that way they wouldn't wasting energy. Seems like he wants to create a loose alliance with Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other smaller countries in the region will follow these countries.
We begin to see this approach taking form in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria. Also, i think against UAE. Hakan Fidan never steps the toes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia always consults with them on the matters.
I think both Egypt and Saudi Arabia needs time to being fully trusting on Turkey after all these years but this approach will be good for the region if it works out.
I also think that Iran should have a empty seat in the room. But should only enter this room when Mullah regime dies and a sensible regime in Iran appears.
Falcon29
Elite Member
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
Latest Posts
-
-
-
-
UK Racism against Muslims and Brown people: Why are blacks in the UK given a free pass by white english racists? (13 Viewers)- Latest: Distant_Observer
-
