Sudan: Islamists Accuse Iran of Promoting Shiitism

11 Responses to “Sudan: Islamists Accuse Iran of Promoting Shiitism”

1. tommy on December 20th, 2006 5:11 pm

   The same thing is happening in Syria with the tacit support of the Alawite (semi-Shiite quasi-Muslim) rulers of the country. Iran is providing incentives to entire villages in Syria that are willing to convert to Shiism.

2. Roman Kalik on December 20th, 2006 6:36 pm

   And Saudi-Arabia does much the same. Between SA and Iran the Muslim faith is in serious trouble. Both countries spread their own particular radical interpetations as Truth, and when national and religious interests become one and the same, bad stuff tends to happen. Religion thus becomes a political tool, and just as corrupt and led by self-interest.

3. Rancher on December 20th, 2006 11:47 pm

   Today I find out Iran is messing around in Bahrain and now Sudan too!

4. Drima on December 21st, 2006 2:43 am

   I say let’s put aside Samuel Huntington’s arguments for a while. This whole Sunni-Shia thing is really starting to freak me out. The Saudi VS Iran thing is getting more and more obvious. Iran getting the nuke will be bad for the region… very very bad.

   Rancher, check this out too.

5. Finnpundit on December 21st, 2006 4:25 am

   I say let’s put aside Samuel Huntington’s arguments for a while.

   Why? It’s exactly as he predicted, only this time the clash of civilizations is happening within the Muslim world itself.

   This was bound to happen. Shiite and Sunni Islam will and must clash, because both espouse a fundamentalist (as opposed to a figurative, interpretive - ) approach to Islam, that is mutually hostile. This is the disastrous dead-end of all sectarian religious ideology. Europeans realized it at the end of the Thirty Years War, - between Catholics and Protestants - in the 1600s, which set back the economic development of central Europe for 200 years. That sectarian war, by the way, encouraged the age of Enlightenment and, eventually, the ascendancy of secular politics.

   There is nothing but war on the horizon, nowadays. A nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel but, - more significantly - a threat to Saudi Arabia and all the smaller Sunni states surrounding it. Geopolitics becomes all the more dire when Iran gets the bomb, - which we need to assume it will, if we want to think realistically.

   What’s amusing about all this - looking at the whole thing from some distance away - is that so many Muslims near the scene seem to be sticking their heads in the sand, and not thinking about the consequences. Perhaps most of their time is spent on coming up with some new conspiracy theories about how the Joooz are behind it all, once again?

   In the end, if Muslims want to avoid another round of that never-ending, self-inflicted humiliation they seem to care so much about, it behooves everyone to really stop obsessing about Israel, or the US, and start thinking about the widening rift.

   In that war, most Muslims should realize that there will be very few calls in the western world for any kind of humanitarian intervention, as most westerners are already too weary to care about Sunnis and Shias slaughtering themselves in a continuous bloodbath.

6. Drima on December 21st, 2006 5:23 am

   “Why? It’s exactly as he predicted, only this time the clash of civilizations is happening within the Muslim world itself.”

   Mmmm, because he predicted a clash between Western civilization and Islam? That’s different from what I’m more worried about ie. a Sunni-Shia clash which is clearly where we are heading if the same things continue.

   An Iran with a nuke will mean big trouble and NOT just for Israel but for surrounding Sunni dominated countries too. I just wished more Muslims realized that. An Iran with a nuke won’t mean a stronger Ummah but a worse and weaker one since it will generate a lot of internal conflicts.

7. The Raccoon on December 21st, 2006 4:15 pm

   Yes, Sunni-Shiia troubles are getting worse… very rapid deterioration. When Al-Qaeda calls Nasrallah an agent of the antichrist, you can be sure that the faeces are going to hit the air-conditioning.

   Very bad for the Muslim/Arab world… but perhaps it can contain the violence inherent in the said world to its own boundries. It just seems like Arabs/Muslims (I am generalizing here, mind you) have worked themselves into a fever-pitch of violence and paranoia that has no choice but to explode. It is visible quite clearly in Iraq, Iran, Palestine… and getting more visible in Jordan, Sudan, Egypt, various African and Western states with large Muslim populations. The divisions are growing deeper; the violence is getting more gruesome; the hatred is becoming more entrenched…

   And the Sunni-Shiia clash does not rule out a Western-Muslim clash, BTW.

8. Hakim on December 22nd, 2006 9:23 am

   ” Iran getting the nuke will be bad for the region… very very bad.”

   Do you think Iran would nuke Muslims?

9. The Raccoon on December 22nd, 2006 10:57 am

   Hakim - well, they did issue a fatwa permitting killing as many Muslims as needed if you’re killing Jews. And it’s not as if Iran had any particular problems slaughtering Muslims en-masse in the recent past.

   You honestly believe the whole “umma” thing will get in their way to gaining more power and/or the Apocalypse?

10. Drima on December 22nd, 2006 1:16 pm

    Hakim, I don’t think they will nuke Muslims. The probability is low but Iran getting a nuke will trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. Gulf countries have already announced their plans to start a “peaceful” nuclear program for “energy” means and so did Egypt. The ME is a very volatile region and it’s already bad enough at its current state without countries being armed with nuclear bombs *yet*. You never know my friend. Plus, are you going to deny that the proxy war in Iraq that’s already building up between Iran and Saudi Arabia isn’t going to get worse and spread to other places? What about Lebanon? Just look at the link in this post itself.

    I don’t have a problem with Sunnis converting to Shia Islam and I certainly don’t have a problem with Shias. Hell my Iranian friend was here chilling at my place and just left 30minutes ago. What I have a problem with is retards using religion to serve their own political purposes. We’re already witnessing the destabalizing effect of Iran in the region and this is just the start. Whether Iran will actually use the nuke or not doesn’t matter at the moment. That will be vague speculation. However a nuclear Iran is certainly going to inflame Sunni-Shia proxy wars in the region.

11. The Sudanese Thinker » How Does Egypt Feel About Sudan’s Close Relations With Iran? on January 19th, 2007 7:21 pm

    […] While Egypt’s Mubarak has an obvious anti-Iran stance, al-Bashir’s NCP is getting closer and closer to Iran. The Sudanese defense minister is there right now seeking mutual military cooperation. Could it be really true that high ranking officials in the NCP have indeed become heavily influenced by Shia ideology to the extent that they want Sudan to be allied with Iran? That will explain a lot. My friend’s dad who’s an ex member of the NCP but is still in contact with other NCP members thinks so. So does my dad and some of his well informed Sudanese friends. Plus, even if high ranking officials aren’t being influenced, others on the Sudanese street defintely are. Sudan has enjoyed good relations with Iran for a long time but only recently has there been increasing military cooperation between us and the Iranians. Isn’t Mubarak worried about that? If Sandmonkey is right which I fear he might be, then at least we have an idea of where Sudan could be standing. Hmmmm… […]

Leave a Reply