Ideally anyone who doesn't have a track record of being accused of sectarian views on the matter.
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Ideally anyone who doesn't have a track record of being accused of sectarian views on the matter.
I'm sure Mehdi isn't neutral like every other middle east pundit but I wouldn't consider him to be a sectarian, that's a massive and serious accusation to make about someone in the Muslim world without concrete evidence.
He's definitely had his run ins with anyone who criticizes Iran. To his credit, he has tried to rehabilitate himself as a sort of hard hitting mainstream journalist with AJE in recent years, but still its hard to take him seriously as some sort of balanced arbiter of Saudi policy.
Stability is in the eye of the beholder. In 1978 the Saudis were quite happy with the regional situation. As they see it, since then four Arab capitals which surround them - Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana'a - have fallen under a degree of explicitly hostile Iranian influence which didn't exist there before (not to mention the potential they see for future Iranian influence in Qatif, Bahrain and Qatar)*. I'm sure someone who can understand Russian anxieties over NATO expansion in Eastern Europe can recognize why the Saudis have reacted to this.
*(Edit): you can throw in Gaza there too.
You're not really neutral, you're a vocal supporter of what has been the dominant US global agenda in recent times, so by extension you're (perhaps subconsciously) more receptive to the Saudi narrative in this particular conflict.
Last edited:
I'm also receptive to Rouhani's moderating influence as well. I'm equally unreceptive to the narratives being advanced by both the Wahabis and Velayat al-Faqih mob. All rational people should be amenable to moderates on both sides as that's the only way progress will be made.
I am a Pakistani (and also British, have spent years in both countries esp the latter) the amount of damage the Saudis have done through their uncontrolled funding to madrassas in Pakistan has been insane. You will be stunned to know that out of estimated 8 million students in these places, for 6 million the funding comes from the Saudis. Not only here but worldwide. There have also been constant recent attempts by them to embroil Pakistani troops in Yemen, which uptil now have been resisted and long may it continue.
They continue to pump money into pretty much every right-wing Wahabi organisation in the country, from televangelist like Farhat Hashmi to the right-wing Mullahs in my nation. Iran is not comparable to them. (I come from a Sunni family, in case someone tries to say I am biased towards Iran)
In terms of their impact on Islam in Pakistan generally, you're correct that it's not really comparable - the Saudis will always have an advantage there since Pakistan is a largely Sunni country (80-90% by most estimates) with its own tradition of anti-Shi'i reformist movements such as the Deobandis and Ahl-i-Hadis which will always attract and be attracted to Saudi money due to ideological affinity (more so in the case of the Ahl-i-Hadis than the Deobandis). Still it would be interesting to know the proportion of Shi'i institutions in Pakistan which are under some kind of Iranian influence or receive Iranian funding - I bet it's comparable to the Saudis in that respect. I was recently in Lucknow which is the cultural centre of Shi'ism in South Asia and there were pictures of Khomeini and some of his fellow travelers such as Hassan Nasrallah on show at the major Imambaras and Shi'i mosques there there.
They were in the 80's when both proxies played against each other, now its negligible. The level of Saudi infiltration in our culture from Madrassas to how women dress to funding religious television figures is on another level and dwarves anything else especially since 9/11.
The amount of ass licking is impressive.
You're being very specific. Do you have any links to back up the claims and figures you quoted?
What is the culture of Pakistan and how do you want Pakistan to develop and change its identity? Most political commentators say the division of India came about because Pakistan wanted a Muslim/Islamic homeland. Does than not remain the goal anymore?
Pakistan is such a diverse country and clothing in most part is traditional Shalwar Kameez, which does not compare anywhere near Saudi mode of dress for women. In the FATA and other conservative districts, if you're referring to the veil the style and mode of clothing of women have not changed for centuries. This is well before the house of Saud came into existence.
How do you want the women of Pakistan to dress?
These figures were quoted in the press and talk shows regularly a few years ago when questions were being raised as to how so many madrassas were able to finance and support themselves when the state is broke.
I am not sure if you have been to Pakistan but I have regularly each year and lived there as well. Shalwar Kameez is a traditional clothing but the amount of Niqaabs and hijaabs that have popped up have been unreal in the last decade or so and were never a part of culture. What was part of our culture were dupattas. Along with countless religious channels and TV shows, an example is Al-Huda, who get their funding from abroad. And who millions of people listen to, women in my own family who were very liberal are addicted to it and now don hijabs and abayas. And that's one example. Another reason we can't go against Saudis or Arabs in general is the obvious funding they give to our military. And have done for a long time anytime we have been in trouble. That's why you had the Arabs giving threats when we refused to attack Yemen yet we didn't give in.
Again not everything is like that, you go to Pakistani schools, colleges and universities and you'll find everyone shagging everyone, getting high on weed etc the same things people do everywhere, you still have massive Western style malls popping up everywhere and you'll see a lot of women dressed in jeans in the big cities but the middle class really isn't getting any liberal. A small thing like the khatme-nabuwat issue recently got the government (themselves allied to various right wing groups) in deep trouble.
Its a very complex matter but not so complex if you're a Pakistani who regularly follows politics.
@Wengerscoat
In case you're wondering I'm a Sunni Muslim. I share British, Indian, Pakistani heritage. (my mothers side of the family were divided during the partition).
So you can't provide any links? You're following a well-worn narrative of Saudi's sponsoring Madressas. It is my opinion you have wildly exaggerated figures in your previous post without much research. Madressas are well regulated by their respective governments and transferring money to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh from Saudi is very difficult. Most Madressas are financed by local communities and diaspora with Zakat money.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh do not generally follow the Salafi/Wahhabi school of thought. They have always been more aligned to Sufism mainly Deobandi, and Barelwi schools of thought who are very apolitical, and generally do not involve themselves in government affairs. If Saudi's had any influence on religious teaching with their financial influence why have they yet not managed to change the bulk of the population to Wahabism?
You admit Pakistan is very diverse and liberal with their attire and lifestyle. If the women by choice wear and cover their hair, face with the Nikab, or Dupatta due to spirituality/beliefs/culture why is that a problem for you?
In case you're wondering I'm a Sunni Muslim. I share British, Indian, Pakistani heritage. (my mothers side of the family were divided during the partition).
So you can't provide any links? You're following a well-worn narrative of Saudi's sponsoring Madressas. It is my opinion you have wildly exaggerated figures in your previous post without much research. Madressas are well regulated by their respective governments and transferring money to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh from Saudi is very difficult. Most Madressas are financed by local communities and diaspora with Zakat money.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh do not generally follow the Salafi/Wahhabi school of thought. They have always been more aligned to Sufism mainly Deobandi, and Barelwi schools of thought who are very apolitical, and generally do not involve themselves in government affairs. If Saudi's had any influence on religious teaching with their financial influence why have they yet not managed to change the bulk of the population to Wahabism?
You admit Pakistan is very diverse and liberal with their attire and lifestyle. If the women by choice wear and cover their hair, face with the Nikab, or Dupatta due to spirituality/beliefs/culture why is that a problem for you?
Have you actually ever lived in Pakistan? Or have you been following the Deobandis and Barelwis in Pakistan from their Mumtaz Qadri kissing to holding threatening rallies and locking Islamabad down on any perceived offense. Have you heard about Khadim Rizwi? From the TLP. A Barelwi. He had the capital locked down till their supporters had to begged off to leave after the government tried to propose legislation which was less bigoted towards minorities. And you're calling that apolitical. TLP, who are now a political party, his arrest has just been issued from an anti-terrorism court. All these lot were apolitical, not now. Even during the recent by-elections a lot of these right-wing harmless organisations in the past have now popped up.
Even the universities I mentioned are now slowly becoming full of Jaamat-e-Islami goons, read about the Mashal Khan lynching. THAT level of intolerance wasn't there before. And please don't tell me whether I am posting about stuff without research or not. I have lived half my life in Pakistan and the change has been very obvious.
Its a country full of contradictions. You do have a lot of liberalism and you don't. People like Junaid Jamshed had to run from the country after some of these 'apolitical' organisations accused him of blasphemy. Which isn't a good precedent. No question in big cities there is a lot of liberalism, the West paints us as a third-world rubble with bearded Mullahs which its not. But this nasty undertone isn't nice when people like Rizwi can block a city at a whim.
My dream is for there to be a secular Pakistan since you asked.
Last edited:
@Sultan You're one of my favorite posters here so apologies if I came out too aggressive. 
Deobandi ulama have been heavily involved in politics since the First World War, and both trends have political organs in Pakistan today which claim to represent them. As broad-based movements they don't attempt to explicitly regulate their adherents' political lives, but the particular doctrines they espouse certainly feed into the politics of Pakistan. Deobandi teachings have traditionally been anti-Shi'i which is why the SSP was founded by Deobandis and one of the reasons why Deobandi madrassas have attracted Saudi support since 1979, despite the fact that their adherence to the Hanafi madhhab is at odds with Wahhabism. The Saudis didn't make Deobandi doctrine anti-Shi'i, but their support has certainly helped the Deobandi movement win its share of Pakistan's religious market (Saudi Wahhabism is much more doctrinally aligned with the Ahl-i-Hadis which remains a minor but influential movement in South Asia).
Similarly, the Barelvis' almost semi-divine conception of the prophetic role of Muhammad seems to have helped drive them towards taking perhaps the most extreme anti-Ahmadi and anti-'blasphemy' position among the various movements.
Islam in Pakistan is so diverse, it resembles an economy with the various movements in competition with each other, and unfortunately in some respects it's been a race to the bottom since at least the 1970s - the anti-Ahmadi campaign of that time was followed in the 80s and 90s by an anti-Shi'i campaign and a general outbreak of Sunni-Shi'i sectarian violence (fueled by the Iranian Revolution and Iran-Iraq War) followed more recently by anti-Barelvi actions, which in turn have prompted the Barelvis to try to prove their own Islamic authenticity by turning back on the Ahmadis and so-called blasphemers. It's a big mess which is certainly not helped by the influence of foreign sponsors like the Saudis and Iranians.
Anti-Ahmedi stuff is true when it comes to state policies but not anti-Shia as 20% of our population is Shia. Zardari, Benazir etc are all Shias and have been in power multiple times. As I said Iranian influence is now only limited to gangster type people (such as Uzair Baloch who had Iranian citizenship and who caused chaos in Karachi till he was caught out).
All the various groups are nowhere to be seen when you walk say in Islamabad or Faisalabad or Lahore, you can calmly go on a date with your girlfriend, go to a mall, eat KFC, watch a movie and come back home. The problem is whenever the state or any minister tries to challenge any religious laws, these various groups have a lot of street power and they will come out of nowhere. Example: Mumtaz Qadri fiasco and recent Islamabad protests by these Bralevis, who recently had been rather harmless.
The country generally has however gone much better, security is excellent now. Terror incidents post the school killing are very rare now. Cricket players are coming as well but this undertone of ''if you challenge any religious legislation we will block the capital'' is unsettling as a Pakistani. Its done far too easily by certain groups at a whim.
You're spot on that Islam in Pakistan is very diverse, its a complex situation.
Yes, I was talking only of the anti-Shi'i rhetoric and actions that have come from the Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadis since the 80s. The anti-Ahmadi movement was driven by non-state actors, and the state under Bhutto caved, in part because he wanted to boost his legitimacy in religious terms.
Many of the same Sunni activists who played a role in shaping the anti-Ahmadi campaign moved on to the Shi'a after, and turned to violence when the state failed to support them on this. From the other side, I bet many of the Shi'i figures who supported the anti-Ahmadi campaign came to regret it later.
The problem is that once the weak Pakistani state allowed the debate over who or what constitutes a real Muslim to be taken over by a group of religious bigots of various backgrounds, it opened the way for the same arguments to be used against other targets of the bigots. So you then have a situation in which each group is always consciously striving to prove its Islamic credentials against each other.
The situation is not simple, like you earlier said. Religious parties have a lot of power in that they can affect law making and legislation but not enough power to ever seriously win any election. But you're correct that bigots try to outdo their Muslimness to each other for sure. Its a vicious cycle.
@2cents
There were a couple of Scholars in Pakistan who specialised in anti-Shia rhetoric. However, they have now passed away and it's basically gone very quiet on that front. If anything some of the main and most prominent Deobandi scholars Mowlana Tariq Jameel and the Tablighi movement is very much against any type of criticisms of any other religious group. The scene is changing.
Politicians will always pander to their audiences and Pakistan is no different. If anything some of the demonstrations which @Wengerscoat mentions are organised by politicians to boost their ratings amongst the gullible.
There were a couple of Scholars in Pakistan who specialised in anti-Shia rhetoric. However, they have now passed away and it's basically gone very quiet on that front. If anything some of the main and most prominent Deobandi scholars Mowlana Tariq Jameel and the Tablighi movement is very much against any type of criticisms of any other religious group. The scene is changing.
Politicians will always pander to their audiences and Pakistan is no different. If anything some of the demonstrations which @Wengerscoat mentions are organised by politicians to boost their ratings amongst the gullible.
Those protests were a nightmare for politicians. I am unsure as to you even know which one I am talking about? The government wanted to bring an amendment to a religious law, which Rizwi and his Bralevis did not like and they decided to block the capital till the army came in and all but begged them to leave.
No issues my brother. You have been very polite and I'm taking your points on board.@Sultan You're one of my favorite posters here so apologies if I came out too aggressive.
I work with charities in Pakistan as an NGO, mostly in FATA. We run girls schools for the underprivileged girls who are in bonded labour with mill owners and brick kilns. I'll be in Pakistan towards the end of April.
I personally knew Junaid Jamshed who you mentioned and have stayed with Mowlana Tariq Jameel at his house. The main Imam of Badshahi Masjid in Lahore is a personal friend. I have very good links and a sense of thought processes of these highly influential people and how Madressas are funded and run. I assure you Saudi money is very rare these days. Even if Saudi money is used I personally don't see an issue if they're not pushing an agenda.
Okay awesome, you should post more. It would be great reading some of your experiences.
How is FATA right now btw? I keep hearing people are coming back? But hard to get any sort of accurate view.
It was more than just a "couple" and the two major guys that I can think of off the top of my head didn't "pass away", they were assassinated by Shi'i militants.
In any case, if what you say about the current situation is true then great; but sadly the damage has been done and is going to need a lot of work to repair.
Masha-Allah FATA is improving. Pathans are very proud people and hold dear their culture. People seem to think modernism and change is good. I believe in keeping whats good in people and their culture. We just slowly work on improving education and health and living standards.
Due to our their intense love of our faith we as Muslims are particularly prone to get over emotional on religious matters. We shoot off our mouths and to my mind lose composure on I would say insignificant matters. Pakistan being a newly formed country and very proud of that fact, wanting to preserve their identity are particularly prone to going out on streets and protesting. Emotions then tend to get confused with spiritualism.
Sorry but this is the kind of thing 19th century Western orientalists and modern-day Islamophobes come out with. There are very real political, social, economic and religious factors underlying sectarianism in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world.
Simple but true explanation.
Yup... When you factor in the gap between rich and poor, the potential move away from oil dependency, the ethnic tensions, some authoritarian states and well it looks probable the region's problems are going to escalate over the next generation... It would be nice to think there is a simple way to solve it all but frankly these are demographic and long existing problems abd there is no quick fix
That said middle East birth rates are 2.8
Arab world 3.4
But sub Saharan Africa 5.0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
So I guess resources etc in all those regions are going to get stretched incredibly over the next couple of generations... No idea how we fix it...
Anyway I'm gonna buy shares in soylent green
Countries with huge birthrates have more pressure to adopt policies that lead to (strong) productivity growth, while having less resources to do so.
The questions are: what policies do countries need to adopt? Are those policies politically and socially feasible/realistic?
We know what policies/institutions are necessary to improve productivity in a globalising world, because there are many countries that took a positive development in the past. "Stability" (whatever this actually means in detail) is one of many preconditions. So wouldn't reduce it just to birthrates. Some countries with high birthrates could make this transition. Yet for most countries in the middle East it's completely unthinkable, because such a transition would destabilize the political and social institutions, which leads to violent instability. Most countries in this region are trapped in low prod-growth environments. The exceptions might be those countries that have huge per capita resources to "buy" approval.
A shitty metaphor: they need to role a heavy boulder up a mountain, but only have enough strength to go half the way. After that they start to lose control and the boulder roles back down; due to the speed they end up further down the mountain. Additionally current leadership doesn't even know which direction to go and use their power to move sideways.
I am a lot more optimistic about parts of eastern and western Africa to make this transition despite problematic demographics.
The questions are: what policies do countries need to adopt? Are those policies politically and socially feasible/realistic?
We know what policies/institutions are necessary to improve productivity in a globalising world, because there are many countries that took a positive development in the past. "Stability" (whatever this actually means in detail) is one of many preconditions. So wouldn't reduce it just to birthrates. Some countries with high birthrates could make this transition. Yet for most countries in the middle East it's completely unthinkable, because such a transition would destabilize the political and social institutions, which leads to violent instability. Most countries in this region are trapped in low prod-growth environments. The exceptions might be those countries that have huge per capita resources to "buy" approval.
A shitty metaphor: they need to role a heavy boulder up a mountain, but only have enough strength to go half the way. After that they start to lose control and the boulder roles back down; due to the speed they end up further down the mountain. Additionally current leadership doesn't even know which direction to go and use their power to move sideways.
I am a lot more optimistic about parts of eastern and western Africa to make this transition despite problematic demographics.
Last edited:
Great thread. I'll give an example of how the Islamists have capitalized on the failure of the regimes to provide adequate solutions to the problems fueled by the population bulge.
In the 60s Nasser's regime in Egypt promised every university graduate a civil service position just as the Egyptian population began to boom out of the control. Obviously by the 70s the universities were absolutely jam-packed with men and women forced to rub up against each other in a way Egyptian society was unaccustomed to. With pre-marital sex a massive taboo and men having no hope of getting married until their civil service position was secured (sometime in the mid to late-20s on average I believe) there was a big rise in sexual harassment at the universities and especially on public transport serving them.
As the government couldn't find a solution, well-funded student groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood stepped in and put on privately run segregated bus services, pushed for segregated lecture halls, started trying to enforce hijab on campus, etc. Suddenly the needs of the society complemented the Islamists' program which had had much less success in winning adherents in the previous decades, and so their arguments regarding mixing of the sexes started making a lot more sense.
Just a small example of how the out of the control population boom helped fuel the Islamization of Egyptian society.
Last edited:
Yep, good thread and gets to the crux of a lot of the structural problems of the economies of these countries.
I am in Egypt now and there isn't a single one of my nephews or nieces that aren't looking for a way, any way, to leave. This from a country who's people have traditionally have been averse to leaving their country, certainly for anything more than temporary work.
Unfortunately, despite also being a moronic tyrant, Sisi has shown absolutely no ability to manage the economic realities. He has started dealing with some of the subsidies and also the issue of the tight control of the currency's value (problems which did need solving at some point but which has caused untold hardship for so many). But he's also fallen into the trap of many tyrants who are obsessed with big projects so they can parade it as achievements and as an army man, has only intertwined further the already strange relationship between the Egyptian army and big business in the country. It is not a good environment for outside investment currently, despite attempts to make it so.
We'll have to see what these countries do to cope because at the moment, the demographic pressures are a ticking time bomb. Lots of jobless young people, males especially, or with jobs not befitting their education, little prospects and with no real hope of political involvement....equals potential disaster. That is without even going into potential disasters like the Ethiopian dam and its still as of yet undetermined effect on Egypt's share of Nile waters.
Its the same in kashmir, hijabs were not worn by majority of women but now the vast majority of them are hijabis. Kashmiris are also watching those same channels.
I always thought you were in west Africa.
I am (well originally, I live and work in London now) but my wife is half Egyptian and was raised here. So we're here a lot!
Silence in the media about the chemical labs found in Ghouta, used by the so called 'rebels'. Found the original link on a Norwegian site, this was the only one I could find in English.
https://mideastshuffle.com/2018/03/...-laid-bare-in-an-eastern-ghouta-chemical-lab/
https://mideastshuffle.com/2018/03/...-laid-bare-in-an-eastern-ghouta-chemical-lab/
'There is no justice under occupation'
Not middle East but Nigeria is bearing the results of this now.
40m in 1950
200m+ now.
Our public sector has for all intents and purposes, collapsed.
We're just lucky our private sector is a little more robust.