Support NeoGAF

[M.Bluth]

Rafidah is a term used to paint all Shia don't try to downplay it as merely pointing to extremist Shia, every Shia in his creed rejects what happened to Imam Hussein and the household of the Prophet and reject the reign of Yazid, his father and everyone that came after, that is why they are called rafidah or rejectionist. Shia in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon are called rafidah, nussayria, safawi and majoos (magi), worshippers of graves etc...etc... all time. The only reason for such hate is pure ignorance and sheep like behavior, whatever the mufti says they follow.

Funny how the decades of Sunni oppresion in Iraq didn't lead to such wholesale massacres when the Shia took power marginalization aside.Yet another justification for ongoing Shia genocide, it's not our fault we're slaughtering them they made us hate them...

Yeah, I'll also call bullshit on what Terra said. Every shaikh in that picture has, several times, claimed that the killing of Shias, Sufis, and Zaydis is permissible because they're infidels. In fact, they routinely use those terms as well as "rafidah" to describe all those groups, and more, interchangeably.

And yes, Sunnis being marginalized is true, but only to an extent, and mostly not for the reasons often claimed. For several years the Sunni political parties have been partisan and sectarian over every little thing they don't get their way, and have, several times, chose not to make any attempt at working with the government. Still, whatever your position on this marginalization issue, one thing is not debatable: Salafist and Baathist groups have been bombing Shias and minorities in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and long before ANY Iraqi government formed. So, no, the sectarian violence in Iraq isn't because they were marginalized.

Wait, why are we talking about Iraq? Oh, right, I forgot that the Salafist revenge mentality allows for punishing innocent people if they vaguely fall under the same label as a group they dislike... How "Islamic" of them.

 

[Sijil]

The short version is that killing members of ISIS creates more ISIS supporters who you then have to kill which creates more ISIS supporters, repeat until nauseous and the bodies get too high to walk through.

With the region in the state it's in right now, the best we could do is disperse ISIS. And maybe that'd be enough. But historically, sticking our oar in has gone pretty poorly. Unless you're willing to commit... I don't know how to phrase it, reeducation by genocide? The only answer is to encourage the regional powers to get their shit together, both militarily and domestically.

We've been squirming around ISIS and their ilks for decades, fearing any heavy handed approach would marginalize moderates and create more supporters, winning hearts and minds failed, the awakening tribes in Iraq failed as soon as the American troops withdrew. We learned in Lebanon the hard way that there can be no middle ground with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

It has come to a point where a heavy handed approach is the only way, I mean we either divide the region and let the Shia, moderate Sunnis, Christians, Druze etc... live side by side and give the hardliners their own region, or bomb the extremism out of them. Isn't that what the Allied forces did in WW2? They bombed the Nazi and Imperialist ideologies from the German and Japanese hearts, they bombed them into submission and it worked.

Right now ISIS is riding on its successes and its popularity is soaring, they have to be shown as weak and can be defeated, the image of ISIS is more dangerous than their AKs and rusty T-55s.

 

[Poodlestrike]

We've been squirming around ISIS and their ilks for decades, fearing any heavy handed approach would marginalize moderates and create more supporters, winning hearts and minds failed, the awakening tribes in Iraq failed as soon as the American troops withdrew. We learned in Lebanon the hard way that there can be no middle ground with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

It has come to a point where a heavy handed approach is the only way, I mean we either divide the region and let the Shia, moderate Sunnis, Christians, Druze etc... live side by side and give the hardliners their own region, or bomb the extremism out of them. Isn't that what the Allied forces did in WW2? They bombed the Nazi and Imperialist ideologies from the German and Japanese hearts, they bombed them into submission and it worked.

Right now ISIS is riding on its successes and its popularity is soaring, they have to be shown as weak and can be defeated, the image of ISIS is more dangerous than their AKs and rusty T-55s.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong, but... are you really prepared to accept the death toll and long-term costs associated with that? It'd mean demolishing basically the entire region and ruling it with an iron fist for however long it takes to impose our views on the populace. It'd be worse than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, because in both cases it was a top-down problem, mostly. You could depose the rulers and ~70% of the work was done; more in Nazi Germany, less in Imperial Japan (more thorough programming). Doing the same in the middle east would involve a death toll in the millions and a decades-long occupation.

I don't know if I'm comfortable with that.

 

[GSG Flash]

I would not call some of the stuff in that "sample" as lies. They are also reactionary comments, rather than instigatory. Many Saudi shaykhs have spoken against other groups, including the Sufis, but you don't see Sufis being killed in Saudi Arabia (and yes, there are Sufis in Saudi Arabia; the Mawlid is celebrated even in Madinah!) They have also spoken out against schools of creed, particularly the Ash'ari school.

There are Shi'a who do a lot of the things that those shaykhs have accused them of. Note how none of them are calling for killing of the Shi'a, but they are calling the "Rafidha" as being non-Muslims. Rafidha is a term used for a certain type of extreme Shi'a. Even the Zaydis of Yemen use that term against some types of extreme Shi'a. And no Wahhabi scholar has deemed the Zaydis as disbelievers.

If you want to see the flipside, just look up Yasser al-HabIb (Bahraini Shi'a cleric) and you'll realize why many Arab Sunnis have a negative opinion of the Shi'a, at least from a religious standpoint. The Sunni marginalization that has been going on in Iraq is also seen by many Sunnis who are against Da'esh as having been one of the key factors for Da'esh gaining control over large parts of Iraq.

And there's the token justification for hatred, I'm surprised it took this long.

As Sijil said, it's not just the "extremist" Shias(whatever that means) that are labelled "Rafidah", it's a label applied to all Shias, let's not kid ourselves. In that part of the world, such a label is essentially a death sentence.

Your "flipside" as an example for why Sunnis hate Shias is laughable. Apparently it's acceptable to hate Shias, call them "Rafidah" and make it permissible to kill them based off of the opinions of one moron.

Sunni marginalization in Iraq, though I don't agree with it as two wrongs don't make a right, is a direct result of decades of Shia marginalization and genocide.

 

[Suen]

But on social media, some Saudis rushed to blame Iran for the bombing, asserting that it might have been carried out to provoke Shiites in Saudi Arabia to turn against the kingdom.

“Iran won’t hesitate in scarifying Shia, to create a war between Sunni and Shia,” Luftallah Khoja, a prominent Saudi religious scholar, said in a Twitter message. He blamed Iran for creating the Islamic State, as well.

A number of Saudis said they were refusing to donate blood for Shiites who were injured in the bombing. “I wish to donate, but I am afraid I would donate and a Shia would take it, and he does not deserve even my spit,” one Saudi posted online. “You donate to infidels?” another wrote.

.

 

[The Technomancer]

Goddamnit. Rest in peace to all

 

[Suen]

I saw a graphic video of the aftermath of bombings (body parts everywhere). Oh and a Saudi officer who was there after the bombing took place said "Rest in peace"...
.
.
.
to the guy that blew himself up.




People that have the same mindset as Terra Firma are one of the biggest reasons to why the Shia genocide continues.

The whole "marginalization" of Sunnis in Iraq is like one of the biggest lies ever, moreso when Iraqi Sunnis, after oppressing the Shia majority for decades, weren't erased from existance when the new govt. was set up. They enjoyed the same freedom the oppressed Shia did post-2003, which is significantly more than what most Arab Sunni majoriy countries, who aren't democratic, provide their own Sunni population.

The whole Sunni marginalization is a nice piece of propaganda that the GCC (and mainly Saudi and Qatar) pushed for in the news, along with terms like "Maliki's forces" in an attempt to discredit the Iraqi Army. Guess what Kingdom of Saudi Terrorists are calling the Iraqi Army now? "Abadi's forces". The sad thing is that Sunnis like Terra Firma easily buy this propaganda without ever questioning it, and therefore y their views on the topic hardly comes as a surprise.

 

[Sijil]

But on social media, some Saudis rushed to blame Iran for the bombing, asserting that it might have been carried out to provoke Shiites in Saudi Arabia to turn against the kingdom.

“Iran won’t hesitate in scarifying Shia, to create a war between Sunni and Shia,” Luftallah Khoja, a prominent Saudi religious scholar, said in a Twitter message. He blamed Iran for creating the Islamic State, as well.

A number of Saudis said they were refusing to donate blood for Shiites who were injured in the bombing. “I wish to donate, but I am afraid I would donate and a Shia would take it, and he does not deserve even my spit,” one Saudi posted online. “You donate to infidels?” another wrote.

Disgusting, blaming the victim then refusing to help, yeah I'll bet they'll have a sheikh release a fatwa saying donating to a Shia is akin to eating pork or something.

At this point, is there any difference between a Wahabi or a Nazi? or a Zionist? A Sunni can walk in the streets of Tehran without being judged and with Sunni mosques around and practice his rituals but a Shia has to hide his identity in most Sunni dominated states. And then they ask me why I prefer Iran over Arab countries even tho I'm supposed to be an Arab, they drove us into Iranian hands.

Pan Arabism is dead, died with Abdel Nasser and buried with Camp David, everything after is the age of Wahabism, this is our dark age.

 

[meppi]

Religion.

Well yeah.... lol

But how come that in this day and age, we're still doing the "they have a slightly different belief from me, so I'll blow them all up, including myself. That'll show them!" thing.
What the fuck is the whole point of that? I just can't wrap my head around it.
Maybe that's the problem with it, I dunno.

 

[Sorral]

.

They will keep blaming Iran for everything even though there is undeniable evidence that this is Daesh's/ISIS's doing as a video of the bomber talking surfaced.

I'm not surprised at the other Saudis comments with the kind of media and some sheikhs we got.

snip

Honestly and to put it bluntly, your post is full of lies and downplay. I will keep my reply short as others already replied:

• The term Rafidah is used for all shia
• A lot of companies don't hire shia just because they are shia.
• One guy certainly does not account for millions of people
• Those people on Twitter are completely instigating shit and not reactionary. Al-yaum newspaper does the same thing.
• I live there. Don't bullshit us.

You know, in my time of studying abroad with other Sunnis in the U.S., we just lived without any of this unjustified and meaningless hatred.

Spoiler

It is infuriating to read that sort of thing as a justification. Sigh

 

[Wellscha]

I would not call some of the stuff in that "sample" as lies. They are also reactionary comments, rather than instigatory. Many Saudi shaykhs have spoken against other groups, including the Sufis, but you don't see Sufis being killed in Saudi Arabia (and yes, there are Sufis in Saudi Arabia; the Mawlid is celebrated even in Madinah!) They have also spoken out against schools of creed, particularly the Ash'ari school.

There are Shi'a who do a lot of the things that those shaykhs have accused them of. Note how none of them are calling for killing of the Shi'a, but they are calling the "Rafidha" as being non-Muslims. Rafidha is a term used for a certain type of extreme Shi'a. Even the Zaydis of Yemen use that term against some types of extreme Shi'a. And no Wahhabi scholar has deemed the Zaydis as disbelievers.

If you want to see the flipside, just look up Yasser al-HabIb (Bahraini Shi'a cleric) and you'll realize why many Arab Sunnis have a negative opinion of the Shi'a, at least from a religious standpoint. The Sunni marginalization that has been going on in Iraq is also seen by many Sunnis who are against Da'esh as having been one of the key factors for Da'esh gaining control over large parts of Iraq.

Try another excuse mister shifting the blame to "Iran!, Mossad!, CIA!, KGB!, BBQ!, ASPCA!" etc.

Shias has been systematically oppressed throughout the Islamic world, yet you don't see them doing half of the atrocities Sunnis did to Shias.

 

[ZiZ]

Not like Saudi citizens care, really. I've never met anyone who would consider Shias as 'human'.

Spoiler

Disclosure: Born and raised a Saudi in an Muslim family in the east, where the majority of Shias are situated.

My twitter feed is FILLED with Saudi sunnies condemning the attack. many of them are traveling all the way to Qatif to donate blood. I have not seen one tweet in support of it. (I'm sure some exist but they are nothing compared to the tweets that oppose it)

 

[M.Bluth]

My twitter feed is FILLED with Saudi sunnies condemning the attack. many of them are traveling all the way to Qatif to donate blood. I have not seen one tweet in support of it. (I'm sure some exist but they are nothing compared to the tweets that oppose it)

The types of responses I've seen:
1) Condemning the attack and calling for aid to the victims, and a few calling for action against sectarian agitators.
There are many of those, but I wouldn't call them a majority. I'd argue they're a minority.
2) Condemning the attack while making it clear that they do so because of national security reasons, with barely any sympathy for the victims.
I'd say this was the majority of responses, and it is the reaction that those asshole shaikhs who spend most of their time inflaming sectarianism have expressed.
3) Condemning the attack while blaming Iran or insinuating that Shias did it to themselves. "Like they did in Iraq," is how they put it. And there's a good chunk of this group online.
4) Just straight up celebrating. Thankfully they're not the majority, but they're not a small percentage either.
All of them are saying they deserved the attack because of "what they did to our brothers in Iraq and Syria." Because you know, that 5 year old drops barrel bombs for Assad in h is free time...

And you know what? The attention for this didn't last long, anyway. ISIS, who adopted the attack, just bombed a mosque in Saudi Arabia a few months after claiming responsibility for shooting down citizens in Ahsa, and the national attention given to this barely compares to a bad traffic accident, BECAUSE the victims are Shias.

If Saudis weren't so prejudiced against Shias, you would only see responses like number (1), and you'd see a real attempt at curtailing sectarian rhetoric in the Kingdom.
But what happens instead? Empty words on Twitter. And mostly they're tweets defending the Salafist belief system and claiming that it does not encourage killing Shias, by the same people whose 90% of their accounts are just anti-Shia rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[Dark Rider]

I just read this thread

RIP to the victims and my condolences to everyone effected

reuters had a follow up so here it is:
Tens of thousands turn up for funeral of Saudi suicide attack victims

Saudi security forces stayed away from the funeral in Qatif

sound like a dangerous move.
the follow up has some stuff about sectarianism.

 

[M.Bluth]

I just read this thread

RIP to the victims and my condolences to everyone effected

reuters had a follow up so here it is:
Tens of thousands turn up for funeral of Saudi suicide attack victims



sound like a dangerous move.
the follow up has some stuff about sectarianism.

Here's a clip of the funeral, one of many that have been shared on social media.
It was pretty hard to find an uploaded clip on youtube that was just a clip of just what's going on instead of being intercut with sectarian propaganda...

Additionally, locals have been organizing to set up some neighborhood watch sort of thing around the city. I appreciate and sympathize with them, but I can't imagine this ending well.

 

[xkramz]

i mean look at the news... its horrible and happens so frequent that local news channels dont even cover it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/25/middleeast/isis-killings-palmyra-syria/



262 executions the past two weeks...really ISIS... 13 children were among the victims... i seen graphics videos where they line up the people bilndfolded and shot in head then thrown into river. whats worse are all the videos over at liveleaks where ISIS scum drive around with AK and shooot at random civilians and any GOVT personnel. apparently they write a hit list and comeplete the list.. idk man...

 

[Terra Firma]

Rafidah is a term used to paint all Shia don't try to downplay it as merely pointing to extremist Shia, every Shia in his creed rejects what happened to Imam Hussein and the household of the Prophet and reject the reign of Yazid, his father and everyone that came after, that is why they are called rafidah or rejectionist. Shia in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon are called rafidah, nussayria, safawi and majoos (magi), worshippers of graves etc...etc... all time. The only reason for such hate is pure ignorance and sheep like behavior, whatever the mufti says they follow.

Funny how the decades of Sunni oppresion in Iraq didn't lead to such wholesale massacres when the Shia took power marginalization aside.Yet another justification for ongoing Shia genocide, it's not our fault we're slaughtering them they made us hate them...

Rafidha is a term even used by the Zaydis, who are themselves Shi'a.

Nusayris ARE an actual sect within Shi'ism - those who are the Alawis (you know, those that even some Shi'a consider as heretics).

As for the label "majoos" - is there not a shrine erected in Iran for the fire worshiper (i.e. majoosi) who assassinated Umar?

You make it sound like Sunnis are happy with what happened to Hussein at Karbala.

And the only reason that there hasn't been a wholesale extermination of Sunnis (there HAVE been massacres of Sunnis by Shi'a in Iraq ever since Saddam fell) is because of the Shi'a government being allied with the US.

So okay, some rogue Shia cleric, who was condemned by many Shia clerics and who was basically excommunicated, says something bad so Shias deserve to die because of it?

Also this Sunni marginalization shit is a myth. Sunnis are just unhappy that they don't have complete monopoly and control of the government. Look at the makeup of the Iraqi cabinet. Marginalization my ass.

Uh...did I or any of those shaykhs from that tweet collage call for the death of Shi'as? What happened to the Shi'a in Saudi Arabia is a tragic incident and there is NO excuse for it. Whoever did that should be brought to justice.

And it's not a myth. Sunnis are marginalized in countries where Shi'as are a majority. Iran bans Sunnis from building mosques in major cities, routinely broadcasts material offensive to Sunnis, and silences Sunnis from voicing themselves in the media, as examples.

Yeah, I'll also call bullshit on what Terra said. Every shaikh in that picture has, several times, claimed that the killing of Shias, Sufis, and Zaydis is permissible because they're infidels. In fact, they routinely use those terms as well as "rafidah" to describe all those groups, and more, interchangeably.

And yes, Sunnis being marginalized is true, but only to an extent, and mostly not for the reasons often claimed. For several years the Sunni political parties have been partisan and sectarian over every little thing they don't get their way, and have, several times, chose not to make any attempt at working with the government. Still, whatever your position on this marginalization issue, one thing is not debatable: Salafist and Baathist groups have been bombing Shias and minorities in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and long before ANY Iraqi government formed. So, no, the sectarian violence in Iraq isn't because they were marginalized.

Wait, why are we talking about Iraq? Oh, right, I forgot that the Salafist revenge mentality allows for punishing innocent people if they vaguely fall under the same label as a group they dislike... How "Islamic" of them.

Bring your evidence for this claim. And Zaidis are not considered "infidels" by majority of Sunnis, even among the Wahhabis. They're closer in belief to Sunnis than they are to the 12er Shi'as (e.g. they reject the divinity of the imams, they reject cursing the companions and caliphs, etc.).

The only reason Iraq is being brought up is because there are non-Salafi/Wahhabi or non-ISIS Sunnis in Iraq that had to turn to ISIS because the alternative hadn't been good to them. Do you think that only the Salafis/Wahhabis/ISIS in Iraq had an issue with the Shi'a militia in Iraq?

And there's the token justification for hatred, I'm surprised it took this long.

As Sijil said, it's not just the "extremist" Shias(whatever that means) that are labelled "Rafidah", it's a label applied to all Shias, let's not kid ourselves. In that part of the world, such a label is essentially a death sentence.

Your "flipside" as an example for why Sunnis hate Shias is laughable. Apparently it's acceptable to hate Shias, call them "Rafidah" and make it permissible to kill them based off of the opinions of one moron.

Sunni marginalization in Iraq, though I don't agree with it as two wrongs don't make a right, is a direct result of decades of Shia marginalization and genocide.

It is easy to justify hatred when it is not one sided. Do you even realize why there is so much antipathy towards the Shi'a beliefs (beliefs, not people) from the Sunni side? That flipside is merely one example. Do you think that guy is alone? Do you think Shi'as don't hate and curse the companions?

Do you even think that the term "Rafidha" was coined by the Sunnis?

Also, not one of those shaykhs in that tweet collection has justified killing Shi'as based on what Yasir al-Habib and those who share his beliefs have said.

As a side note: I do not share the same beliefs as those shaykhs nor do I subscribe to Salafi/Wahhabi beliefs, but I do think that many Shi'a beliefs, such as cursing the companions and the wives, etc., to be a provocation against the Sunnis overall (and all Sunnis, regardless of Sufi or Salafi or otherwise hold the companions in extremely high regard). According to many Shi'as (except of course the Zaidis), I'd be considered a Nasibi. According to many Shi'as, the Zaidis would be considered Nasibis.

 

[kurisu_1974]

As a side note: I do not share the same beliefs as those shaykhs nor do I subscribe to Salafi/Wahhabi beliefs, but I do think that many Shi'a beliefs, such as cursing the companions and the wives, etc., to be a provocation against the Sunnis overall (and all Sunnis, regardless of Sufi or Salafi or otherwise hold the companions in extremely high regard). According to many Shi'as (except of course the Zaidis), I'd be considered a Nasibi. According to many Shi'as, the Zaidis would be considered Nasibis.

As another side note, you are all welcome to join us in the 21st century.

 

[Azih]

Terra Firma. You do realize that viewpoints like yours are what gives cover to the shit that happened in Bahrain where Saudi tanks rolled over civillian protesters right?

Edit: And holy shit I'd never heard the term 'majoosi' before and just googled it. You're actually defending this heinous term Terra? What the Hell?

 

[Dark Rider]

Here's a clip of the funeral, one of many that have been shared on social media.
It was pretty hard to find an uploaded clip on youtube that was just a clip of just what's going on instead of being intercut with sectarian propaganda...

Additionally, locals have been organizing to set up some neighborhood watch sort of thing around the city. I appreciate and sympathize with them, but I can't imagine this ending well.

I understand the many dangers of setting up a neighborhood watch but what do you suggest they do? remember according to the article I posted security services handled the big funeral with tens of thousands in attendance with simply leaving them wide open for another bomb attack and keeping away, zero protection.

i mean look at the news... its horrible and happens so frequent that local news channels dont even cover it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/25/middleeast/isis-killings-palmyra-syria/



262 executions the past two weeks...really ISIS... 13 children were among the victims... i seen graphics videos where they line up the people bilndfolded and shot in head then thrown into river. whats worse are all the videos over at liveleaks where ISIS scum drive around with AK and shooot at random civilians and any GOVT personnel. apparently they write a hit list and comeplete the list.. idk man...

I don't understand what you are trying to say, what is your point?

 

[Terra Firma]

Terra Firma. You do realize that viewpoints like yours are what gives cover to the shit that happened in Bahrain where Saudi tanks rolled over civillian protesters right?

Edit: And holy shit I'd never heard the term 'majoosi' before and just googled it. You're actually defending this heinous term Terra? What the Hell?

So, you're telling me that Sunnis should be buddy buddy with those who curse the companions and the wives of the Prophet PBUH? Killing civilians is never right, whether Shi'a, Sunni, non-Muslim, but we are talking about words, not actions, beliefs not race.

And I already qualified why the term majoosi is used: some Shi'a venerate the majoosi Abu Lu'lu who murdered Umar as a saint.

As another side note, you are all welcome to join us in the 21st century.

I'll take your contribution to this thread under advisement.

 

[xkramz]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, what is your point?

I'm not tryna say anything wtf. I'm just simply stating that they do dumb horrible shit in a regular and it sucks.

 

[Azih]

So, you're telling me that Sunnis should be buddy buddy with those who curse the companions and the wives of the Prophet PBUH?

Not saying anything about being 'buddy buddy' but not throwing polarizing hateful slurs at people just because of what you imagine their opinion of historical figures might be would be a hell of a good thing. What you are attempting to defend is as deeply and completely dumb and destructive as some Shia saying 'We should we be buddy buddy with those who curse Ali and the family of the Prophet PBUH?'

but we are talking about words, not actions

Words justify actions, and words like 'majoosi' and 'rafidi' provide obvious cover and justification to terrorists.

And I already qualified why the term majoosi is used

It's a demeaning slur and you know it. I mean the vile shit that it's used for when I googled it is.... it's... good lord. It's like someone saying "it's okay to use the word kike because Jews used to sign with a circle instead of a cross when they couldn't write and kikel means circle in Yiddish". A hateful insult is a hateful insult; the origin of it is irrelevant.

 

[RustyNails]

There are some Shia that curse the Sahaba and Aisha (RA). I've encountered such on forums. But these are fringe lunatics and majority of Shias do not curse them. In fact, didn't Sistani wrote a fatwa saying its prohibited to curse the Sahaba? In any case, saying all Shias curse the Sahaba is like saying all Sunnis are ISIS zealots. There is a middle ground and I hope we can all agree (both Shia and Sunni) that Yazid's claim was illegitimate and his actions deplorable. I dont mind Shias venerating Ali and his sons. They were all martyrs.

And yea the majoosi stuff is bad and sounds like the lingo of someone very deeply entrenched.

 

[M.Bluth]

Uh...did I or any of those shaykhs from that tweet collage call for the death of Shi'as? What happened to the Shi'a in Saudi Arabia is a tragic incident and there is NO excuse for it. Whoever did that should be brought to justice.

Bring your evidence for this claim.

Also, not one of those shaykhs in that tweet collection has justified killing Shi'as based on what Yasir al-Habib and those who share his beliefs have said.

I actually took this point seriously and started combing through their accounts, had a bunch of good links before I thought, this has to be a joke of some sorts... Not only do you have the examples of that picture, but those guys' twitters are filled to the brim with anti-Shia statements where they place all Shias responsible to Iranian foreign policy. The most discreet of their tweets are ones where they call Shias infidels and follow it up with a call for Jihad against infidels. Doesn't really take a genius here...

The only reason Iraq is being brought up is because there are non-Salafi/Wahhabi or non-ISIS Sunnis in Iraq that had to turn to ISIS because the alternative hadn't been good to them.

I would say that's debatable, I'd argue most of them were forced to by ISIS and other Salafist Jihad groups.
I'd also question this part further: "because the alternative hadn't been good to them." Yes, the rubbish Iraqi government wasn't good, but the viable alternative is a group of murderous, raping, thieving scumbags?

It is easy to justify hatred when it is not one sided. Do you even realize why there is so much antipathy towards the Shi'a beliefs (beliefs, not people) from the Sunni side? That flipside is merely one example. Do you think that guy is alone? Do you think Shi'as don't hate and curse the companions?

As a side note: I do not share the same beliefs as those shaykhs nor do I subscribe to Salafi/Wahhabi beliefs, but I do think that many Shi'a beliefs, such as cursing the companions and the wives, etc., to be a provocation against the Sunnis overall (and all Sunnis, regardless of Sufi or Salafi or otherwise hold the companions in extremely high regard). According to many Shi'as (except of course the Zaidis), I'd be considered a Nasibi. According to many Shi'as, the Zaidis would be considered Nasibis.

Yet it seems you buy their bullshit... The whole "cursing the companions and Aisha" thing is way overblown by Salafists, just as Rusty said. Open "cursing of the companions" is indeed limited to the nutjobs.

This whole part of the sectarian divide between Muslims is absurd, anyway. Everyone involved in the conflict of succession, both in the case of Ali, and in the case of Hussein and the Ummayads... They're all dead. Being able to justify oppression and spilling blood over which side a person today falls under is fucking offensive.

I understand the many dangers of setting up a neighborhood watch but what do you suggest they do? remember according to the article I posted security services handled the big funeral with tens of thousands in attendance with simply leaving them wide open for another bomb attack and keeping away, zero protection.

I know there are very few options, perhaps that's the only option, but I also can't help but be pessimistic about the consequences, either.

There is a middle ground and I hope we can all agree (both Shia and Sunni) that Yazid's claim was illegitimate and his actions deplorable.

You'll find difficulty in that with the aggressive campaign by, mostly Saudi clerics but also many Salafi figures, remaking Yazid's image in recent years.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Being Shia in Saudi Arabia must be terrifying even without the attacks.

It definitely demotivates people to go out for Friday prayers. It's always Friday..

 

[shinobi602]

RIP little buddy.

 

[orochi91]

This fundamentalist Sunni hate-boner for Shias is so damn absurd.

Let Allah sort out whose wrong or right whenever Judgement Day happens.

Radical Muslims judging other Muslims is beyond disgusting, especially when they resort to outright violence to dole out their "holier-than-thou" form of justice.

I also find it incredibly hard to believe that the SA authorities couldn't have prevented this, given the iron-grip they have over domestic terrorism (which is practically non-existent).

Security forces should have been assigned to every Shia dominant community/Mosque within SA, given what's happening in Yemen.

 

[ginger ninja]

There are some Shia that curse the Sahaba and Aisha (RA). I've encountered such on forums. But these are fringe lunatics and majority of Shias do not curse them. In fact, didn't Sistani wrote a fatwa saying its prohibited to curse the Sahaba? In any case, saying all Shias curse the Sahaba is like saying all Sunnis are ISIS zealots. There is a middle ground and I hope we can all agree (both Shia and Sunni) that Yazid's claim was illegitimate and his actions deplorable. I dont mind Shias venerating Ali and his sons. They were all martyrs.

And yea the majoosi stuff is bad and sounds like the lingo of someone very deeply entrenched.

Great post

 

[Terra Firma]

Not saying anything about being 'buddy buddy' but not throwing polarizing hateful slurs at people just because of what you imagine their opinion of historical figures might be would be a hell of a good thing. What you are attempting to defend is as deeply and completely dumb and destructive as some Shia saying 'We should we be buddy buddy with those who curse Ali and the family of the Prophet PBUH?'

It is not a question of "might be". There is mention and praise for slander against the companions and the wives of the Prophet PBUH. There are Shi'as in the UK who hold celebrations on the days of the death of Abu Bakr and Aisha, holding events dedicated to cursing and slander. There are books commonly used by the 12er branch of Shi'ism that mentions how cursing the companions and the wives is praiseworthy.

There is no Sunni who curses Ali or the family of the Prophet PBUH. It is against the definition of being a Sunni if someone were to do any of that.

Words justify actions, and words like 'majoosi' and 'rafidi' provide obvious cover and justification to terrorists.

Rafidha is a term used by even the Shi'a (the Zaidis). Nasibiyyah is a term used by the Shi'a against anyone who believes that the first three caliphs were superior to Ali (majority Sunni belief). Rafidha is not applicable to all Shi'as (after all, as I said, it is even used by the Shi'a themselves).

It's a demeaning slur and you know it. I mean the vile shit that it's used for when I googled it is.... it's... good lord. It's like someone saying "it's okay to use the word kike because Jews used to sign with a circle instead of a cross when they couldn't write and kikel means circle in Yiddish". A hateful insult is a hateful insult; the origin of it is irrelevant.

Yeah, your comparison is completely incorrect. What you're saying is a racist term used against all Jews. What I'm saying refers to a subgroup within the Shi'a.

"Majoosi" is only applicable to the type of Shi'a who hold an actual "majoosi" - i.e. Abu Lu'lu' - as a venerable saint (he has a shrine in Iran). I know a lot of Shi'a don't even know who Abu Lu'lu' is, let alone see him as someone praiseworthy. Obviously, the term "majoosi" wouldn't apply to them nor would they even know what that means.

Also, "majoosi" is hardly comparable to a racial slur, since it is in reference to people who hold a particular belief and the fact that actual majoosis - i.e. Zoroastrians - still exist to this day.

I actually took this point seriously and started combing through their accounts, had a bunch of good links before I thought, this has to be a joke of some sorts... Not only do you have the examples of that picture, but those guys' twitters are filled to the brim with anti-Shia statements where they place all Shias responsible to Iranian foreign policy. The most discreet of their tweets are ones where they call Shias infidels and follow it up with a call for Jihad against infidels. Doesn't really take a genius here...

Again, provide some evidence. In those tweets, they don't call for the deaths of the Shi'a.

I would say that's debatable, I'd argue most of them were forced to by ISIS and other Salafist Jihad groups.
I'd also question this part further: "because the alternative hadn't been good to them." Yes, the rubbish Iraqi government wasn't good, but the viable alternative is a group of murderous, raping, thieving scumbags?

It wasn't just the Iraqi government. It was also the Shi'a militias whose actions largely went unmonitored by the government. People reached a breaking point and sided with those who weren't oppressing them, regardless of how evil the group turned out to be.

Yes, some were forced into submission, but there's no denying the fact that many chose to side with ISIS despite not subscribing to Salafism/Wahhabism.

Yet it seems you buy their bullshit... The whole "cursing the companions and Aisha" thing is way overblown by Salafists, just as Rusty said. Open "cursing of the companions" is indeed limited to the nutjobs.

Cursing of the companions and the wives is done openly in the UK. Disrespect is shown more prevalently, even in the Arab world.

This whole part of the sectarian divide between Muslims is absurd, anyway. Everyone involved in the conflict of succession, both in the case of Ali, and in the case of Hussein and the Ummayads... They're all dead. Being able to justify oppression and spilling blood over which side a person today falls under is fucking offensive.

Sectarianism began with politics, but persists due to religious differences. Do you know why Sunnis and Shi'a (except the Zaidis) are so different?

1. Shi'as believe in the divinity and infallibility of their imams. Muslims believe that only the prophets are infallible.
2. Shi'as believe that their imams are of a higher rank than the prophets except for the Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
3. Some Shi'as believe that the complete Qur'an will be revealed when their hidden 12th imam comes out from occultation and that the current Qur'an is incomplete.
4. Some Shi'as believe that most sahabas were Nasibis or became apostates after the death of the Prophet PBUH.
5. Shi'as also share many beliefs in common with the Mu'tazilah school of creed, such as the belief that "seeing Allah" in the hereafter is metaphorical. Sunnis believe that it is not metaphorical, but actual.

There are many, many more sectarian differences. As for differences of fiqh/jurisprudence (such as leaving hands to the side in prayer, etc.) - those are NOT sectarian differences.

And spilling the blood of innocents is never justifiable. Even if someone dishonors the companions or the wives, that is no allowance for murder.

NB: The Mu'tazilah school of creed exists in Oman as the contemporary Ibaadi school of thought. You don't really see antagonism towards them from the Sunnis.

 

[Jag]

Thanks for the Shia/Sunni distinctions. Not being of your faith, I really don't understand the differences between the two and why it has become so violent and bloody.

And spilling the blood of innocents is never justifiable. Even if someone dishonors the companions or the wives, that is no allowance for murder.

Then why is there so much of it? Something is happening to cause so much evil to be done in the name of the faith.

Edit: and that pic of the kid is just heartbreaking.

 

[Azih]

There is no Sunni who curses Ali or the family of the Prophet PBUH. It is against the definition of being a Sunni if someone were to do any of that.

Dude. Ali was ritually cursed in History when the Ummayads were trying to religously justify their rule.

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

 

[Netherscourge]

We've been squirming around ISIS and their ilks for decades, fearing any heavy handed approach would marginalize moderates and create more supporters, winning hearts and minds failed, the awakening tribes in Iraq failed as soon as the American troops withdrew. We learned in Lebanon the hard way that there can be no middle ground with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

It has come to a point where a heavy handed approach is the only way, I mean we either divide the region and let the Shia, moderate Sunnis, Christians, Druze etc... live side by side and give the hardliners their own region, or bomb the extremism out of them. Isn't that what the Allied forces did in WW2? They bombed the Nazi and Imperialist ideologies from the German and Japanese hearts, they bombed them into submission and it worked.

Right now ISIS is riding on its successes and its popularity is soaring, they have to be shown as weak and can be defeated, the image of ISIS is more dangerous than their AKs and rusty T-55s.

Agreed 100%.

The only problem is - who is going to lead this effort and who will support it? I do not think Pres. Obama will commit a significant military force to the effort, just so he can keep his pledge to keep US soldiers, en masse, out of Iraq.

In 2015, you will not get a significant alliance to step forward and shut these extremists down.

You wind up with what we have now - drone strikes and Spec Ops in-and-outs, which require secrecy and aren't as "apocalyptically impressive" as say a WW2 atom bomb.

 

[RustyNails]

It is not a question of "might be". There is mention and praise for slander against the companions and the wives of the Prophet PBUH. There are Shi'as in the UK who hold celebrations on the days of the death of Abu Bakr and Aisha, holding events dedicated to cursing and slander. There are books commonly used by the 12er branch of Shi'ism that mentions how cursing the companions and the wives is praiseworthy.

There is no Sunni who curses Ali or the family of the Prophet PBUH. It is against the definition of being a Sunni if someone were to do any of that.



Rafidha is a term used by even the Shi'a (the Zaidis). Nasibiyyah is a term used by the Shi'a against anyone who believes that the first three caliphs were superior to Ali (majority Sunni belief). Rafidha is not applicable to all Shi'as (after all, as I said, it is even used by the Shi'a themselves).



Yeah, your comparison is completely incorrect. What you're saying is a racist term used against all Jews. What I'm saying refers to a subgroup within the Shi'a.

"Majoosi" is only applicable to the type of Shi'a who hold an actual "majoosi" - i.e. Abu Lu'lu' - as a venerable saint (he has a shrine in Iran). I know a lot of Shi'a don't even know who Abu Lu'lu' is, let alone see him as someone praiseworthy. Obviously, the term "majoosi" wouldn't apply to them nor would they even know what that means.

Also, "majoosi" is hardly comparable to a racial slur, since it is in reference to people who hold a particular belief and the fact that actual majoosis - i.e. Zoroastrians - still exist to this day.



Again, provide some evidence. In those tweets, they don't call for the deaths of the Shi'a.



It wasn't just the Iraqi government. It was also the Shi'a militias whose actions largely went unmonitored by the government. People reached a breaking point and sided with those who weren't oppressing them, regardless of how evil the group turned out to be.

Yes, some were forced into submission, but there's no denying the fact that many chose to side with ISIS despite not subscribing to Salafism/Wahhabism.



Cursing of the companions and the wives is done openly in the UK. Disrespect is shown more prevalently, even in the Arab world.



Sectarianism began with politics, but persists due to religious differences. Do you know why Sunnis and Shi'a (except the Zaidis) are so different?

1. Shi'as believe in the divinity and infallibility of their imams. Muslims believe that only the prophets are infallible.
2. Shi'as believe that their imams are of a higher rank than the prophets except for the Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
3. Some Shi'as believe that the complete Qur'an will be revealed when their hidden 12th imam comes out from occultation and that the current Qur'an is incomplete.
4. Some Shi'as believe that most sahabas were Nasibis or became apostates after the death of the Prophet PBUH.
5. Shi'as also share many beliefs in common with the Mu'tazilah school of creed, such as the belief that "seeing Allah" in the hereafter is metaphorical. Sunnis believe that it is not metaphorical, but actual.

There are many, many more sectarian differences. As for differences of fiqh/jurisprudence (such as leaving hands to the side in prayer, etc.) - those are NOT sectarian differences.

And spilling the blood of innocents is never justifiable. Even if someone dishonors the companions or the wives, that is no allowance for murder.

NB: The Mu'tazilah school of creed exists in Oman as the contemporary Ibaadi school of thought. You don't really see antagonism towards them from the Sunnis.

Just because some UK Shias openly curse the Sahaba and do public protest does not mean all Shias are like that. Anjem Choudhary and HT people hold hardline islamist, return to Shariah/Caliphate rallies which can easily be seen as pro-ISIS rallies. But that does not mean all Sunnis support these clowns.

Again the abu lulu/majoosi stuff is weird. Its like applying a name for an offshoot cult to an entire sect but in an indirect way.

 

[m3k]

Extremely sad

 

[Victarion]

Majoosi is a funny term, lmao. As an Iranian I rather be called that than having any affiliation with Abrahamic religions. Rest in peace to those victims.

Carry on.

 

[Wellscha]

How the heck a thread about a tragedy where innocents were killed turn into an anti Shia rhetoric?!

Majoosi?! Rafidah?! WTF those are very offensive slurs!

 

[Suen]

It wasn't just the Iraqi government. It was also the Shi'a militias whose actions largely went unmonitored by the government. People reached a breaking point and sided with those who weren't oppressing them, regardless of how evil the group turned out to be.

The reprisal mainly came when Sunnis blew up a sacred Mosque to Shia muslims. This was after decades of oppression under the Baath regime. This was some years after 2003, years where Sunnis used car bombs and suicide bombers to kill countless of Shia frequently. Mind you that not even during those years did the Shia retiliate back. Despite decades of oppression, coalition forces setting up a govt. that was at first more Shia-oriented and Shia in Iraq being more or less in control at that time did any retiliation happen from them. Sunni terrorists kept bombing and killing for free, up until the mosque was attacked, and only then did the retiliation begin because your buddies finally crossed a line they shouldn't have crossed and thanks to that they started a sectarian war, likely intentionally. It's like asking US why they went nuts over Afghanistan after 9/11.

As much as you like the GCC narrative of things you should read upon the subject more and stop making it look like the attacks by Shia militias just began for no reason whatsoever.

By the way, the car bombings and sucide bombings still occurs today, 12 years later. It hasn't stopped for 12 years, and about every single one of them has targeted Shia.

By the way, the death toll of Shia in Iraq is significantly higher than any other group in the country. You can compare it with Kurds, Christians, Sunnis. Shit I bet you could put them all together and you'd still nt even be close to the Shia death toll. That sure doesn't add up when we listen to the GCC narrative, and the general Sunni narrative about Iraqi govt. or Shia militias terrorizing and oppressing (lol) Sunnis in Iraq. At the very least you'd expect the Sunnis death toll to surprass any other group's death toll..

By the way, most deaths of Iraqi Sunnis has been done at the hands of other Sunnis, both Iraqi Sunnis and foreign Sunnis. From a mixture of Baathists, Al Qaida and ISIS.

By the way, the speaker of the parlament is required to be a Sunni and several positions in the CoM are occupied by Sunnis. This was true for the previous administration as well.

By the way, the previous administration bombed Shia militias with the Iraqi military.

By the way, Sunni tribes and militias in Iraq actually get paid for fighting ISIS/AQI by the Iraqi govt. Do you know what forces like PMU get paid? Nothing.

From the last three points I suppose we can say, using the laughable GCC/Sunni logic, that the Iraqi govt. is actually a Sunni sectarian govt.

 

[Suen]

Saudi Arabia brutally crushed the protests for more rights from their Shia minority. A group that has been oppressed and threatened for decades.

Bahrain brutally crushed, with the aid of Saudi Arabia, the protests for more rights from their Shia majority.

Yemeni Shia, oppressed for decades, demanding more rights and a more inclusive government in Yemen. What happens in response? A coalition is set up by the following countries:

Countries participating in Yemen military campaign against Houthis:

Saudi Arabia (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Bahrain (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Kuwait (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Qatar (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
UAE (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Morocco (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Egypt (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Jordan (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Sudan (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Senegal (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)
Malaysia (Sunni majority & Sunni rule)

That's 11 countries with a Sunni rule that is attacking one single Shia group in Yemen. They assambled the entire coalition in less than a month to attack a Yemeni group with very valid complaints, and yet have barely launched many air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.

What happens in Pakistan? Stuff like 41 Shia Ismaili Muslims killed after gunmen attack bus in Pakistan. Killings of Shia muslims in Pakistan isn't even a rare thing.

What about Egypt? Well things like Egyptian Shia religious leaders having to stand trial for promoting Shia Islam even though there is no legislation in Egypt that forbids them from religious activities.

It's also very interesting to note that these new extemist Sunni groups have all popped up in countries where there is a significant Shia population or where countries aren't friendly towards Sunni interests:

Iraq (Shia majority)
Syria (Shia minority in charge of the govt. although it's not a Shia government but a Baathist govt.)
Yemen (Shia)
Nigeria (Boko Haram. Nigeria has a sizeable Shia minority)

Yet the western media does not talk anything about any of these countries being sectarian to the very core. Instead so called credible (to westerners anyway) news outlets like BBC continues to write up lies about ongoing operations in Iraq or the situation there itself. I wouldn't be surprised if they are on a GCC payroll and even intentionally do so. Majority of Sunnis would of course never explore this topic since they'd quickly realize how mostly full of shit their media/views (wherever they got them from) are. Lots would probably be in so much denial that they wouldn't even admit it and call it some Iranian propaganda. I wouldn't even blame westerners or some western news outlets who just follow reports from Middle Eastern organization. The news primarily comes from GCC, who does a very good job at showing a completely different image in their English channels such as the English Al Jazeera channel:

But no. It's the Iraqi govt. that is sectarian and Iraqi troops that have to be criticized. The interesting thing is that unlike all countries above Iraq has a mixed army and government, and unlike most of them it's democratic.

Anyway for most of you participating in this thread I thought this post would be interesting to share with. These things happening aren't a surprise when something around 70 % of the terrorism done in the world is committed by Sunni muslims. Now we can all go back and pretend there aren't centuries of ongoing discrimination, persecution and genocide of Shia and other Muslim minorities by the Sunni majority. Let's also join Terra's crusade in making the use of derogative slurs acceptable.

As a final addition to this post I thought I would add this:

All of them were air cadets in practice, young men in their early 20's. Yes, every single one of them was a Shia muslims and the capture and execution didn't even take a week. There was no attention whatsoever given to it in the western media. No talk about another sectarian massacre from Sunnis of the many they've done towards other minorities. The Sunni world didn't say anything (they didn't even say anything when Sunni tribes in Anbar were being massacred by their own "Sunni brethrens" for fighting on the country's side instead of fighting on the side of a bunch of Iraqi Baathists remnants and Bedou camel riders)

But Iraq/Shia/Sectarian yada yada.

P.S
I forgot to add one thing. All countries that persecute and oppress their Shia minority/majority claim that their protests, complaints, marginalization, and oppression are simply just Iranian propaganda. Do you guys know which man in Middle East that used the same excuse of just saying "It's Iranians" to deport hundreds of Iranian-Iraqi families to Iran, and to kill and oppress acountless number of Iraqi Shias? Well Middle East's very own modern Hitler:

Wow what a big surprise that they all have the same mentality as him.........

 

[Suen]

Security forces should have been assigned to every Shia dominant community/Mosque within SA, given what's happening in Yemen.

There were some security forces (or officers, police or something) in the area where this bombing happened. The officer didn't say anything to the victims. He said "Rest in peace" to the suicide bomber. If I was a Saudi Shia then trusting the security forces, police officers, military or anything state-related would be the last thing I do. The officers and security forces despice the Shia there just as much.

 

[Terra Firma]

Just because some UK Shias openly curse the Sahaba and do public protest does not mean all Shias are like that. Anjem Choudhary and HT people hold hardline islamist, return to Shariah/Caliphate rallies which can easily be seen as pro-ISIS rallies. But that does not mean all Sunnis support these clowns.

Again the abu lulu/majoosi stuff is weird. Its like applying a name for an offshoot cult to an entire sect but in an indirect way.

The cursing of the companions is not restricted to the UK. It was just highly publicized there. It is commonly done in Pakistan. I have even witnessed it personally when I was in Pakistan. You can also see it whenever there is a call-in show there.

Majoosi is actually applicable to some Shi'as because of their sanctification of Abu Lu'lu. The Shi'a also have a derogatory term. The term "Nasibi" used by the Shi'a against the Sunni means someone who hates the Ahl-al-Bayt. This cannot apply to a Sunni. To hate the Ahl-al-Bayt is to go against the commandments of the Prophet PBUH and no Sunni would do that. Some Shi'as try to limit the application to the Salafis or Wahhabis, but even then it doesn't make sense since Salafis and Wahhabis also command love for the Ahl-al-Bayt. The difference is, Sunnis (as well as Salafis and Wahhabis) reject the Shi'a narrations that make their imams almost divine and they reject that Ali was the first caliph or that he was the best person after the Prophet PBUH - that honor goes to Abu Bakr (except in this case, all the prophets come before Abu Bakr, whereas Shi'as believe that Ali is better than all the prophets except the last).

How the heck a thread about a tragedy where innocents were killed turn into an anti Shia rhetoric?!

Majoosi?! Rafidah?! WTF those are very offensive slurs!

Ask a Salafi if he likes being called a "Wahhabi" but no one bats an eye. I sure don't.

The reprisal mainly came when Sunnis blew up a sacred Mosque to Shia muslims. This was after decades of oppression under the Baath regime. This was some years after 2003, years where Sunnis used car bombs and suicide bombers to kill countless of Shia frequently. Mind you that not even during those years did the Shia retiliate back. Despite decades of oppression, coalition forces setting up a govt. that was at first more Shia-oriented and Shia in Iraq being more or less in control at that time did any retiliation happen from them. Sunni terrorists kept bombing and killing for free, up until the mosque was attacked, and only then did the retiliation begin because your buddies finally crossed a line they shouldn't have crossed and thanks to that they started a sectarian war, likely intentionally. It's like asking US why they went nuts over Afghanistan after 9/11.

As much as you like the GCC narrative of things you should read upon the subject more and stop making it look like the attacks by Shia militias just began for no reason whatsoever.

By the way, the car bombings and sucide bombings still occurs today, 12 years later. It hasn't stopped for 12 years, and about every single one of them has targeted Shia.

By the way, the death toll of Shia in Iraq is significantly higher than any other group in the country. You can compare it with Kurds, Christians, Sunnis. Shit I bet you could put them all together and you'd still nt even be close to the Shia death toll. That sure doesn't add up when we listen to the GCC narrative, and the general Sunni narrative about Iraqi govt. or Shia militias terrorizing and oppressing (lol) Sunnis in Iraq. At the very least you'd expect the Sunnis death toll to surprass any other group's death toll..

By the way, most deaths of Iraqi Sunnis has been done at the hands of other Sunnis, both Iraqi Sunnis and foreign Sunnis. From a mixture of Baathists, Al Qaida and ISIS.

By the way, the speaker of the parlament is required to be a Sunni and several positions in the CoM are occupied by Sunnis. This was true for the previous administration as well.

By the way, the previous administration bombed Shia militias with the Iraqi military.

By the way, Sunni tribes and militias in Iraq actually get paid for fighting ISIS/AQI by the Iraqi govt. Do you know what forces like PMU get paid? Nothing.

From the last three points I suppose we can say, using the laughable GCC/Sunni logic, that the Iraqi govt. is actually a Sunni sectarian govt.

So, what you're saying is that all Sunnis were responsible for the actions of the pre-ISIS Al Qaida in Iraq and its violent actions? After all, that is what the mentality of the Shi'a militants was when they went on reprisals.

What about the fact that the Shi'a government routinely jails and makes Sunnis disappear, just how Saddam did with his opponents? What about the fact that bogus charges have been filed against Sunnis in power, forcing them to flee without recourse? Former Sunni vice president was even sentenced to death in absentia. What about the fact that even those Sunni groups that are actively fighting against Iraq still do not get any support from the government?

That you say "lol" to the murder of Sunnis at the hands of Shi'a militia speaks volumes.

And don't call ISIS/al-Qaeda as "my buddies".

You also keep bringing up the demolition of the al-Askari Shi'a mosque where there was NOT A SINGLE CASUALTY as justification for the carte blanche murder and destruction of Sunnis and Sunni mosques. I don't know how any sane person can justify murder of innocent civilians because a BUILDING was demolished, REGARDLESS of how holy you think it is.

 

[ZiZ]

Saudi Arabia brutally crushed the protests for more rights from their Shia minority. A group that has been oppressed and threatened for decades.

out of genuine curiosity, what rights are those? what rights are denied Shia that Sunnies have?

Yemeni Shia, oppressed for decades, demanding more rights and a more inclusive government in Yemen. What happens in response? A coalition is set up by the following countries:

No, what happened in Yemen was an extremist organization, not supported by most Yemeni shia, took over many major cities, and attacked neighboring countries.

those images are from DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS and are TWO YEARS APART it even says so on the sheet they're holding.

I'm not saying things are peachy for Shia, this whole Sunni/Shia conflict is a tragedy. But it's not as you paint it. You act as if Shia extremists had no role in this. Shia religious TV channels spew as much hatred as Sunni religious TV channels. The only reason it looks bad for shia is because they are far outnumbered by sunnis. If the numbers were switched then so would the oppression. That is terrible, and it doesn't justify any of the violence.

People claiming that the Saudi government could've stopped this if they wanted to are mistaken. They have nothing to gain from this attack but everything to lose. they risk causing dissent in a region that's already pretty shaky, Groups like ISIS thrive on conflict if not the Sunni/Shia then they'd make something else, it is their lifeblood. They did this to try and spark a war in the country.

 

[7aged]

No, what happened in Yemen was an extremist organization, not supported by most Yemeni shia, took over many major cities, and attacked neighboring countries.

Yeah, Suen's characterisation is from a different world. The zaydi majority have always held power in north Yemen and it's unified successor (As for the south, it was Marxist when it was independent).

What's happened is that 2 parties (AA Saleh, the Houthies) have exploited the weakness of the interim government to grab power. The irony is that those 2 were on opposite sides during the revolution.

People claiming that the Saudi government could've stopped this if they wanted to are mistaken. They have nothing to gain from this attack but everything to lose. they risk causing dissent in a region that's already pretty shaky, Groups like ISIS thrive on conflict if not the Sunni/Shia then they'd make something else, it is their lifeblood. They did this to try and spark a war in the country.

Agreed. They definitely do care about protecting them and foreigners too for that matter. Terrorist activity undermines the status of the country as a strong stable state.

Now although the Saudi government has one of the most powerful and sophisticated internal security services, someone slipping through was inevitable. I was in Saudi recently and the atmosphere was frightening. The country has been whipped into a nationalist and sectarian frenzy.
Everywhere you go there are large banners with the flag and pictures of the new triumvirate with the slogan "we pledge allegiance, to listen and obey" (Nobody has every seen or heard anything like this in Saudi before). Constant top gun style montages of our armed forces in Yemen on TV. Fiery and nasty sermons at Friday prayers. Forums and social media have become more ill tempered, aggressive and jingoistic.

It is all very tense, and dangerous. The longer the war in Yemen goes on the more vulnerable this propaganda becomes for da'esh to exploit. They can't keep a lid on this forever. They need a way out of Yemen so they can tone it down before all hell explodes.

 

[Brhoom]

Why? There were kids you asshole.

 

[GSG Flash]

It is easy to justify hatred when it is not one sided. Do you even realize why there is so much antipathy towards the Shi'a beliefs (beliefs, not people) from the Sunni side? That flipside is merely one example. Do you think that guy is alone? Do you think Shi'as don't hate and curse the companions?

Do you even think that the term "Rafidha" was coined by the Sunnis?

Also, not one of those shaykhs in that tweet collection has justified killing Shi'as based on what Yasir al-Habib and those who share his beliefs have said.

As a side note: I do not share the same beliefs as those shaykhs nor do I subscribe to Salafi/Wahhabi beliefs, but I do think that many Shi'a beliefs, such as cursing the companions and the wives, etc., to be a provocation against the Sunnis overall (and all Sunnis, regardless of Sufi or Salafi or otherwise hold the companions in extremely high regard). According to many Shi'as (except of course the Zaidis), I'd be considered a Nasibi. According to many Shi'as, the Zaidis would be considered Nasibis.

Do you know what my response to those Sunnis showing antipathy towards all Shias because of a small subset of Shias cursing revered Sunni personalities is? Grow a thicker skin.

In the end, they're just words and words don't hurt or kill anyone. That applies to this attack, that applies to any attack related to the Muhammad cartoons, it applies anytime anyone is violently killed as a result of someone's feelings being hurt. You cross the line and lose legitimacy to any grievances you have when you resort to violence as a response.

What extremist Sunnis are doing is blowing themselves up to kill innocent people as a response, and they're being enabled by those exact Sunnis that you're describing in your post.

Hell, just look at yourself. Every single post you have made in this thread is an attempt to justify Sunni hatred for Shias.

 

[Ikael]

The most amazing thing about Terra Firma and the majority of Saudi Arabia's public is how they are wholly unaware of how much sectarian they are.

You're conditioning your sympathy and convivence towards other fellow muslims on what you assume to be the opinion of every single shia over a non-central religious figure. I see little ummah spirit here, yet tons of prejudice and tribalism.

 

[Jag]

Everywhere you go there are large banners with the flag and pictures of the new triumvirate with the slogan "we pledge allegiance, to listen and obey" (Nobody has every seen or heard anything like this in Saudi before). Constant top gun style montages of our armed forces in Yemen on TV. Fiery and nasty sermons at Friday prayers. Forums and social media have become more ill tempered, aggressive and jingoistic.

Doesn't sound much different than parts of the US.

 

[electricboogaloo]

Disgusting, blaming the victim then refusing to help, yeah I'll bet they'll have a sheikh release a fatwa saying donating to a Shia is akin to eating pork or something.

At this point, is there any difference between a Wahabi or a Nazi? or a Zionist? A Sunni can walk in the streets of Tehran without being judged and with Sunni mosques around and practice his rituals but a Shia has to hide his identity in most Sunni dominated states. And then they ask me why I prefer Iran over Arab countries even tho I'm supposed to be an Arab, they drove us into Iranian hands.

Pan Arabism is dead, died with Abdel Nasser and buried with Camp David, everything after is the age of Wahabism, this is our dark age.

and how do you exactly know that sunni's are not being marginalized in iran?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sunni-muslims-living-fear-iran-state-sponsored-persecution-ramps-1484673


lets stop with "shia are the only victims" games.

 

[Azih]

If you don't like the term Wahhabi and Nasibi then stop spouting terms like Majoosi and Rafidha. You're contributing to the toxic environment that's causing all of this Muslim on Muslim violence Terra Firma.

And for what? The honour of people long dead? Are some Shia insults towards Abu-Bakr-Ayesha et all worth you making things worse in the here ane now by insisting on using, and justifying the use of, hateful slurs?

 

[Terra Firma]

Do you know what my response to those Sunnis showing antipathy towards all Shias because of a small subset of Shias cursing revered Sunni personalities is? Grow a thicker skin.

In the end, they're just words and words don't hurt or kill anyone. That applies to this attack, that applies to any attack related to the Muhammad cartoons, it applies anytime anyone is violently killed as a result of someone's feelings being hurt. You cross the line and lose legitimacy to any grievances you have when you resort to violence as a response.

What extremist Sunnis are doing is blowing themselves up to kill innocent people as a response, and they're being enabled by those exact Sunnis that you're describing in your post.

Hell, just look at yourself. Every single post you have made in this thread is an attempt to justify Sunni hatred for Shias.

Tell me, why did the Shi'a of Iraq go on a murdering spree when one of their shrines was destroyed where there was not a single fatality?

And it's kind of contradictory of you to say that words don't kill people and yet get on the case of Saudi shaykhs who are also using words.

The most amazing thing about Terra Firma and the majority of Saudi Arabia's public is how they are wholly unaware of how much sectarian they are.

You're conditioning your sympathy and convivence towards other fellow muslims on what you assume to be the opinion of every single shia over a non-central religious figure. I see little ummah spirit here, yet tons of prejudice and tribalism.

You should educate yourself over what Shi'ism (particularly 12er Shi'sm) actually entails when it comes to belief before calling for unity. There wouldn't BE a Shi'a sect if they were concerned about unity.

If you don't like the term Wahhabi and Nasibi then stop spouting terms like Majoosi and Rafidha. You're contributing to the toxic environment that's causing all of this Muslim on Muslim violence Terra Firma.

And for what? The honour of people long dead? Are some Shia insults towards Abu-Bakr-Ayesha et all worth you making things worse in the here ane now by insisting on using, and justifying the use of, hateful slurs?

Reading comprehension helps. I don't care that Wahhabis are called Wahhabis. I call Wahhabis as Wahhabis because they follow Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Nasibis cannot be applied to Sunnis by default. Majoosi does apply to a subgroup of Shi'a.

So, what you're saying is that it is okay to insult the Prophet PBUH as long as long as no one insults those who hurl those insults? Analogously, if someone hurls insults at the Prophet PBUH, we should all sit quietly and not be bothered by it.

Do you even realize the importance of the companions and the wives of the Prophet PBUH in Islam?