Saudi Arabia - whats going on there?

[Hans]

This is all part of the upcoming increase in the intensity of the 1,000 year old Sunni vs Shia war. Like most countries Saudi has doves and hawks. In Iran the Hawks are in charge when the Hawks get full control of SA expect more intense proxy wars between the two groups.

 

[Childlike Empress]

This is all part of the upcoming increase in the intensity of the 1,000 year old Sunni vs Shia war. Like most countries Saudi has doves and hawks. In Iran the Hawks are in charge when the Hawks get full control of SA expect more intense proxy wars between the two groups.

Utter nonsense. The sectarianism of our days is completely one-sided, and that is the side of Wahhabism, which isn't even Sunni if you ask mainstream Sunni scholars. Erdogan, who with all his flaws is a ballsy guy, just stood up to the clown prince as almost the only one in the Sunni camp calling him out for his "moderate Islam" claims. There's only one Islam, says Erdogan, and nowhere in the Quran it says that women shouldn't be allowed to drive, so screw you if you think allowing them is a turn to anything moderate.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The official position in Lebanon now is that Hariri has been kidnapped.

 

[Hans]

Utter nonsense. The sectarianism of our days is completely one-sided, and that is the side of Wahhabism, which isn't even Sunni if you ask mainstream Sunni scholars. Erdogan, who with all his flaws is a ballsy guy, just stood up to the clown prince as almost the only one in the Sunni camp calling him out for his "moderate Islam" claims. There's only one Islam, says Erdogan, and nowhere in the Quran it says that women shouldn't be allowed to drive, so screw you if you think allowing them is a turn to anything moderate.

The Shia would agree there is only one correct Islam - their version and in particular Khomeini's ideology of velayat-e faqih

Moderate? No I was saying the opposite, social moderate perhaps but a hard liner in the S vs S war - are you actually unaware of Shia actions since the revolution and their goals? Those goals clash with the goals of the Wahhabis and 'moderate' Sunnis too

 

[Childlike Empress]

The Shia would agree there is only one correct Islam - their version and in particular Khomeini's ideology of velayat-e faqih

I challenge you to show us a contemporary speech of Khamenei, Nasrallah, Sistani or any other Shi'ite leader of importance that contains rhetoric against Sunni Islam.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Shia would agree there is only one correct Islam - their version and in particular Khomeini's ideology of velayat-e faqih

*spit take*

Do you know how ridiculous velayat-e faqih is from the perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence? It has very little precedent and was cooked up by Khomeini in 1970. It is far more influenced by philosophy and revolutionary movements Khoneini encountered in the West than any traditional interpretation of Islam; some suggest the idea of philosopher-kings in Plato's Republic was one key influence.

Don't get my wrong, Khomeini is venerated by many twelver Shias, but his system of government is not really key to that. It's a weird quasi-revolutionary religio-nationalist system.

I think the only one eith comparable thought I know of would be Sayyid Qutb, who was Sunni.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

*spit take*

Do you know how ridiculous velayat-e faqih is from the perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence? It has very little precedent and was cooked up by Khomeini in 1970. It is far more influenced by philosophy and revolutionary movements Khoneini encountered in the West than any traditional interpretation of Islam; some suggest the idea of philosopher-kings in Plato's Republic was one key influence.

Don't get my wrong, Khomeini is venerated by many twelver Shias, but his system of government is not really key to that. It's a weird quasi-revolutionary religio-nationalist system.

I think the only one eith comparable thought I know of would be Sayyid Qutb, who was Sunni.

I'd bet if you transposed the population of Iran into an alternate reality where they had religious and political freedom, you'd probably see the bulk of the population revert to "orthodox" Twelver and probably a considerable resurgence of Zoroastrian worship, as well.

 

[Oystein]

I'd bet if you transposed the population of Iran into an alternate reality where they had religious and political freedom, you'd probably see the bulk of the population revert to "orthodox" Twelver and probably a considerable resurgence of Zoroastrian worship, as well.

How did you arrive at this conviction?

 

[Mycroft]

How did you arrive at this conviction?

That people given religious freedom would us it?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That people given religious freedom would us it?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

The "bulk" of the population? That's ridiculous.

 

[Mycroft]

The "bulk" of the population? That's ridiculous.

I interpreted "orthodox" in this context to mean whatever version was popular before the revolution when the state took over and chose the version for you.

But hey, maybe not.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I interpreted "orthodox" in this context to mean whatever version was popular before the revolution when the state took over and chose the version for you.

But hey, maybe not.

You mean before Shah Ishmail in the 16th century? Or before Timur? Maybe before the Sassanids?

 

[Mycroft]

You mean before Shah Ishmail in the 16th century? Or before Timur? Maybe before the Sassanids?

Why wouldn't you think I wasn't referring to the Iranian revolution of the late 1970's?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Why wouldn't you think I wasn't referring to the Iranian revolution of the late 1970's?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Awful double negative. Of course I meant, "why would you think I wasn't referring to the Iranian revolution of the late 1970's."

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Why wouldn't you think I wasn't referring to the Iranian revolution of the late 1970's?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

Because it's the most intuitive reading, surely there has to be a twist!

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[Oystein]

That people given religious freedom would us it?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

There are more options to go than "orthodox twelver shia" and "zoroaster". Agnosticism, liberal new age islam, sunni radicalism...

 

[Mycroft]

Because it's the most intuitive reading, surely there has to be a twist!

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Well, the twist is that Velayat-e Faqih really is quite ridiculous from a more traditional Islamic Jurisprudence point of view and demonstrates that Khomeini was too polluted by Western thought to be taken seriously. It's HELLENIZATION, but the revolutionaries had guns so the rest had to listen and agree.

And yet, almost 50 years later it still holds sway of over 80 million people, and you know it's read and studied by countless others who are lured by the idea of a modernist justification of an Islamist state. They want to believe, so who knows if a few centuries from now it won’t be considered the beginning of an Islamic reformation? Maybe in that time Islamic governance will have spread across the globe, and people could be happy with it?

It's times like this I wish A'isha were here to offer informed commentary for I'm sure that what I just said was pulled from my arse and if there was any sense to it It’s only from coincidence. Still, if Velayat-e Faqih doesn’t mesh well with it’s precedents then your observation that modern Iranians transported to a parallel world where they have the choice to do so would revert to previous belief systems unsullied by Khomeini’s rantings. So I am confused because TubbaBlubba should agree with you, and yet he does not?

Explain, TubbaBlubba! Explain!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Still, if Velayat-e Faqih doesn’t mesh well with it’s precedents then your observation that modern Iranians transported to a parallel world where they have the choice to do so would revert to previous belief systems unsullied by Khomeini’s rantings. So I am confused because TubbaBlubba should agree with you, and yet he does not?

Explain, TubbaBlubba! Explain!

OK, I will try. First, keep in mind that velayat-e faqih was only published in 1970. Khomeini was, to say the least, a household name before then. He symbolized, at the very least, the opposition of traditional religious elements to the shah. Many believed him to be the Mahdi, a messianic figure, a claim that Shah Ishmail I of the Safavids made 500 years ago, after forcibly converting the country to twelver Shia Islam. I would argue that the system of government gains legitimacy from Khomeini's role in creating it, and its "nativity". To my understanding, accepting Khomeini's system of government (to be clear, that is what velayat-e faqih is. It's not a school of theology) did not trigger some massive shift in peoples' religious beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a widespread idea that Iran wasn't all that religious before the "revolution" (or coup, if you prefer). This is to a great degree due to propaganda by the the Pahlavi Shahs and other nationalists, and the fact that most Westerners were only really exposed to the very liberal, very propped-up and ostensibly prosperous Tehran. Meanwhile, it is notable that, for example, university attendance rates in the country was around 5% in the 60's and 70's, I believe, and most of those studied abroad. (Today it's something like 35%, the majority being women.) Iran was very non-urbanised, and the countryside was very religious and conservative.

Prior to the Pahlavi dynasty, the history of religious oppression in Iran is very long, arguably going back to pre-Islamic times, though to what degree there exists a continuity there is debatable. Indeed more freedom was allowed under that dynasty (unless you were a socialist) but the Pahlavis simply weren't all that popular. Most of Iran was very religious before them, continued to be under them, and continued to be after them. The idea that the BULK, including non-urban population, are only religious in the way they are due to constant oppression is based on a propaganda-inflicted misperception of Iran and its history.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

OK, I will try. First, keep in mind that velayat-e faqih was only published in 1970. Khomeini was, to say the least, a household name before then. He symbolized, at the very least, the opposition of traditional religious elements to the shah. Many believed him to be the Mahdi, a messianic figure, a claim that Shah Ishmail I of the Safavids made 500 years ago, after forcibly converting the country to twelver Shia Islam. I would argue that the system of government gains legitimacy from Khomeini's role in creating it, and its "nativity". To my understanding, accepting Khomeini's system of government (to be clear, that is what velayat-e faqih is. It's not a school of theology) did not trigger some massive shift in peoples' religious beliefs.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a widespread idea that Iran wasn't all that religious before the "revolution" (or coup, if you prefer). This is to a great degree due to propaganda by the the Pahlavi Shahs and other nationalists, and the fact that most Westerners were only really exposed to the very liberal, very propped-up and ostensibly prosperous Tehran. Meanwhile, it is notable that, for example, university attendance rates in the country was around 5% in the 60's and 70's, I believe, and most of those studied abroad. (Today it's something like 35%, the majority being women.) Iran was very non-urbanised, and the countryside was very religious and conservative.

Prior to the Pahlavi dynasty, the history of religious oppression in Iran is very long, arguably going back to pre-Islamic times, though to what degree there exists a continuity there is debatable. Indeed more freedom was allowed under that dynasty (unless you were a socialist) but the Pahlavis simply weren't all that popular. Most of Iran was very religious before them, continued to be under them, and continued to be after them. The idea that the BULK, including non-urban population, are only religious in the way they are due to constant oppression is based on a propaganda-inflicted misperception of Iran and its history.

It seems as though you are arguing against the premise that Iranians would become more secular. I'm not sure anyone asserted that.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It seems as though you are arguing against the premise that Iranians would become more secular. I'm not sure anyone asserted that.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Sorry, I got the discussion mixed up at some point. However, I would not take the revolution to imply any large shift in religious practice in general.