Military Review

The war of the Shiites and Sunnis and the fatal mistake of the West ("Atlantico", France)

50
Bahrain's interior minister said the country's police detained eight people suspected of involvement in a terrorist group linked to Iran. It is believed that the terrorists received instructions and funding from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Apparently, the main task of the group was to support Shiites living in the territory of Bahrain.


Over the weekend, the Sunni dynasty in power in Bahrain (their minority in the country) once again arranged persecution of the Shiite opposition (true or not, but it is considered controlled by Tehran), marking the anniversary of the February 2011 uprising of the year, which was drowned in blood blessings of Saudi Arabia and the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf (it includes Sunni “pro-Western monarchies” opposing Shiite Iran and any democratization of society). The fact is that the Sunni regimes of the Persian Gulf (first of all, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates), which are sent to Bahrain weapon and a soldier to crush the democratic Shiite opposition, fear the "Shiite-Iranian threat." This is especially noticeable after Western intervention in Iraq in 2003, which allowed the Shiite majority to come to power after long years of the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein (it was perceived as a “bastion” on the way of Shiite Iran). This fear of the “Shiite axis” is shared by other Arab states, including Jordan and Egypt, in which the Muslim Brotherhood (Sunnis) hold power.

The “Shiite crescent”, which relies on Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, extends right up to eastern Saudi Arabia and Kuwait: there are significant Shiite minorities that are poorer than the rest of the population, but are more demographically active and more susceptible to the revolutionary propaganda of Tehran. In addition, the Shiite axis includes Alawite Syria (as long as power belongs to the Assad clan) and the pro-Iranian-minded Shiite Hezbollah, which has long become the real owner in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s popularity is largely due to the widespread use of anti-Israeli rhetoric, the purpose of which is to attract the Arab masses to its side and make them forget that the Shiite-Iranian bomb is directed primarily against the Sunni monarchies ... Hence, Qatar’s desire to establish control (with through funding) over the Palestinian Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip, which has long followed in the fairway of Hezbollah and received funds from Iran.

Who are the Shiites?

In the Sunni media, they are often represented as “moderate” representatives of the “majority” (80%), while the minority groups (15-20%) have earned the stigma of “fanatics” and “heretics”. In fact, the concept of "Shi'ism" comes from the Arabic "shia", which means the followers of Ali (he was Muhammad's cousin and cousin, fourth successor or "caliph", who was overthrown by his Sunni enemies after an unfair trial). The Sunni caliph expelled the Shiites from the country (initially they were no less, and almost more, Muslims than the Sunnis), and they gradually turned into contemplative Islam with a rigid structure of the clergy. They call Ali and his descendants the only legitimate heirs of the Prophet Muhammad and worship their own saints. Their main martyrs are Ali Talib (killed in 661, the mausoleum is located in Iraqi Najaf) and his son Hussein died at the hands of the Sunnis (the tomb is in Iraqi Karbala).

As for the Sunnis, their name comes from the Arabic “Ahl al-Sunna (people of the Sunni). This means that they are the guarantors of the "traditional" dogma of Islam, that is, the Sunnah, which is based on the "Hadith" or commentary of the Prophet Mohammed. Be that as it may, the most radical schools in Islam were founded by Sunnis. The Shiites never put an end to the interpretation of the Qur'an, whereas the Sunnis who led the Caliphate did this in the tenth century, banning all liberal and non-orthodox movements, that is, the Sufis, Shiites and rationalistic sects (mutazilites), who nevertheless predominated in Baghdad in the golden age of Islam. Such obsession with dogma and the desire to control other Muslim movements can be considered the distant forerunner of Salafism and even the Muslim Brotherhood, political and orthodox Islam, retrograde-minded Islam, which, with the support of the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf, managed to undermine the positions of secular and Shiite groups. So, for example, Qatar “in a modern way” goes to the fulfillment of this task and from the very beginning of the “Arab spring” supports the Islamist opposition in Morocco, Syria and Mali ...

Shiite extremists against moderate Sunnis?

Stuck in the minds of people in the West about the “evil Shiites” and “moderate Sunnis” is related to the fact that the largest and theocratic Shiite movement is led by Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran, while in fact many Shiite leaders criticized the Khomeinist ideology, and the most open and secular currents in Islam are Shi'ism (and brutally persecuted by Sunni Orthodox). Among the small but extremely influential sects in Shiism are primarily the Ismailis (the name is associated with the seven most respected imams), who became known for their esteemed leader and benefactor Aga Khan.

The Ismailis operate in Central Asia (primarily in Pakistan), where they own a number of medical centers. In addition, the Alawites in Syria, the Druze in Lebanon, Syria and Israel, the Alevis in Turkey can also be noted. The Alawites brought on themselves the wrath of the Sunnis, as they invariably supported the secular and nationalist parties to fight the supporters of the Shari'a, who perceive them as second-class citizens. Today, they fear the neo-Ottoman Islamism of Prime Minister Erdogan, whose positions are close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Shiites make up the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and Bahrain. In addition, they (for the time being) hold power in Syria thanks to the Alawites and the Assad family, which the aspiring Sunn% majority struggles with trying to take revenge for the 70%. There are Shiites in Yemen, where Sunni authorities regard them all indiscriminately as separatist rebels. Finally, significant Shiite minorities are found throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Qatar, Al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (all of these zones have rich oil deposits) ... Everywhere, where Shiites are in the minority, Sunni groups mock them and even pogroms are organized from time to time: this applies to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even Iraq, where the Shiite-Sunni war has been raging since the overthrow of the power of Saddam Hussein.

The struggle of Shiites and Sunnis and the new cold war between the West and the rest of the world

From a strategic point of view, the pro-Iranian Shiite axis is supported primarily by China, Russia and countries hostile to NATO or America, such as Latin American states and Cuba close to Hugo Chavez. The West, following the logic of the Cold War, in response, supports the Islamist Sunni axis, which is directed against Syria, its Iranian allies and Hezbollah. Be that as it may, such hatred between the Sunni Gulf countries and the Shiite minorities close to Iran is not only strategic: back in 1927, under pressure from the Wahhabis, King Inb Saud released the famous fatwa according to which the Shiites had to go to Sunni faith or leave the country ... Pakistan, one of Saudi Arabia’s main allies and the United States (as well as a patron of the Taliban and other Islamist movements that contributed to the spread of Salafism after the Cold War), oppresses the Shiites ( assertions of Sharia law) to the same extent as Christians and Hindus, calling them "accomplices" infidels. I will give the last of many examples: 16 February 52 Shiite died as a result of the next terrorist attack, which staged the Salafis in the south-west of Pakistan. According to Human Rights Watch, in the country 2012 Shiites were killed in the country in 400, while the forecast for 2013 promises to be much darker: in January alone the number of victims reached 165 people ...

Alas, the West does not consider it necessary to bet (as it was in Iraq) on Shiite movements or secular minorities (such as the Alawites in Syria and Alevis in Turkey) opposing Salafism, and also to protect the rights of Shiite minorities in the Gulf countries and Pakistan or Christians in the East, who are also persecuted in all Sunni countries. Today, the West is driven only by oil and short-term interests, for the sake of which it continues to make a deal with the powers of the Sunni fanatics (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc.) and is inferior to all their obscurantist and neo-imperialist demands. He never criticized or tried to hinder the achievement of the goal set by these states: conquest (re-Islamization) of all Muslim countries with subsequent Islamization of the West by financing (with the blessing of the NATO nations still convinced in the reality of the Russian threat of NATO) radical Islamist associations fighting against the values infidel countries and the integration of Muslim minorities into their society.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/guerre-chiites-sunnites-et-erreur-fatale-occident%E2%80%A6-642436.html
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GEO
    GEO 15 August 2013 07: 39
    +5
    Thank you to Article + for the fact that I popularly and intelligibly explained the difference between the two main trends of Islam. The article clearly shows that, despite the tough theocratic regime in Iran, the main obscurantists in the Islamic world are the Sunnis, who are being fueled by the cunning West, against which they later turn their weapons ...
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 15 August 2013 08: 11
      +4
      The scale of the disagreement between the Sunnis and Shiites is monstrously inflated by the world media, the source of financing of which is well-known. They play the role of provocateurs and influence the consciousness of the declassed elements in every way. I had a familiar Pakistani Shiite. He said that until recently we did not divide ourselves into Sunnis and Shiites. But as if by order suddenly there appeared radical preachers from both sides at the same time. The mosques exploded (for any Muslim to desecrate a mosque is the greatest sin!) and in a day another community. Explicitly looks like a planned action. the situation is in other countries. It doesn’t smell like religion. This is pure politics, and it is used by world players who need civil strife as air as an excuse to establish bases, support their puppets, total control over the economies of these countries, etc.
    2. Basileus
      Basileus 15 August 2013 09: 01
      +2
      The article does not explain the difference popularly and intelligibly, and does not try to whitewash the Shiites, as it would be right, but on the contrary, denigrate the Sunnis. So I do not think that it should be perceived as a good source of information on this issue.
    3. Gari
      15 August 2013 12: 27
      0
      Quote: GEO
      The article clearly shows that, despite the tough theocratic regime in Iran, the main obscurantists in the Islamic world are the Sunnis, who are being fueled by the cunning West,

      All right
      Today, the West is driven only by oil and short-term interests, for the sake of which it continues to make a deal with the powers of Sunni fanatics
      And writes about it that is interesting
      Alexander del Val, recognized geopolitician, former France Soir associate professor of international affairs at Metz University
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 15 August 2013 07: 57
    +1
    Islam of all kinds - whether Saudi-Qatari Wahhabism or Iranian mullocracy - is the main threat to civilization.
    1. serge-68-68
      serge-68-68 15 August 2013 08: 15
      +1
      Which civilization? Western? I will disappoint you. There is a usual change in civilization for world history. There have already been many of those in this very story. It’s just that earlier this change was relatively local (Egyptian was replaced by Assyrian, then Persian, then Greek, then Roman, then ...). And now the scale is larger. Total and business. And I’m sure that just like you, some Egyptian priest stated that the Assyrians are a threat to civilization, and the Roman tribunes said the same about Western barbarians. This is an ordinary life. It is only a pity that the consequences will be just as widespread.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 15 August 2013 08: 46
        +1
        Quote: serge-68-68
        Which civilization? Western?

        This is not Mecca. And not America, and not Geyropa. This is Moscow.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 15 August 2013 09: 06
          +2
          In Russia, by the way, almost 10 million Muslims live. What is the problem?
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 15 August 2013 09: 17
            0
            Quote: Basileus
            In Russia, by the way, almost 10 million Muslims live. What is the problem?
            He who has eyes, let him see. He who has ears, let him hear.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 15 August 2013 09: 47
              +3
              Here I am about the same. Muslims have been living in Russia for more than five hundred years. Why shouldn't they be in Moscow?
        2. serge-68-68
          serge-68-68 15 August 2013 09: 09
          -1
          So what? I will disappoint you again. In a civilizational context, Russia belongs to the Western tradition (mainly).
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 15 August 2013 08: 20
      +5
      It is unwise and unfair to declare a religion professed by 1,5 billion people to be a threat. Then, on the other hand, Christianity will be declared a threat - these are Western Christian countries (USA, Britain, France, etc.) poke their nose everywhere, heat up civil strife, rob countries, plant spirit consumerism. Well, what, it became easier? Politics by politics, just do not declare religion in all the mortal sins of people. Any religion calls for good. These are people, and all faiths are muddied by water.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 15 August 2013 08: 55
        +1
        Quote: xetai9977
        Then, on the other hand, Christianity will be declared a threat - these are Western Christian countries (USA, Britain, France, etc.) everywhere they stick their nose, heat up civil strife, rob countries, instill a spirit of consumerism.

        There is a difference.
        Last time under the slogan of Christianity "Deus vult!" (God wants it) the war was in the 13th century (crusade). And the Islamists terrorize, kill, and rape while screaming "Alla, I'm going to the bar!" these days.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 15 August 2013 09: 02
          0
          America is doing the same. This is a real threat to civilization.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 15 August 2013 09: 25
            -1
            Quote: Basileus
            America is doing the same. This is a real threat to civilization.

            Arrow translation is not the most convincing argument. The discussion topic is Islam. Please do not take offtopic.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 15 August 2013 09: 49
              +1
              What translation, what are you talking about? Your country and its satellites have financed Islamic organizations since the XNUMXth century. Against Russia, against the Ottomans, then again against Russia. And now she’s paying herself. The logical result.
        2. xetai9977
          xetai9977 15 August 2013 09: 23
          +4
          Nagan I already answered you. They are imposing the image of a bloodthirsty Islamist with a knife in his hands and a grenade in his teeth in order to justify the sending of aircraft carriers to distant lands and the invasion of paratroopers in foreign countries. Who serves the world media, this is an open secret.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 15 August 2013 09: 28
            -4
            Quote: xetai9977
            The layman is imbued with the image of a bloodthirsty Islamist with a knife in his hands and a grenade in his teeth
            Why impose an image when there are documentary shots that do not even need Photoshop? True eyes prick?
            1. xetai9977
              xetai9977 15 August 2013 09: 42
              +3
              Your Islamophobia is known to everyone on the site. By your logic, Breivik was an Islamist. Was Hitler, who killed 50 million, also an Islamist? Let’s not take the subject aside. You perfectly understood what I’m talking about.
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 15 August 2013 10: 07
                -1
                And of course you join Barack Hussein Obama's opinion that "Islam is the religion of peace"? How many people here would want to join the American liberal?
                1. xetai9977
                  xetai9977 15 August 2013 10: 18
                  +5
                  Not only Islam, any religion is peace, justice, good! I write comments not for the purpose of someone like it. I simply express my thoughts. I believe that all faiths have thugs and bandits, and not the prerogative of one, as you are trying hard to impose.
          2. Manager
            Manager 15 August 2013 10: 11
            0
            Quote: xetai9977
            The layman is imbued with the image of a bloodthirsty Islamist with a knife in his hands and a grenade in his teeth


            And the very bloodthirsty Islamist is planting it. There is a problem of terrorism and it is unnecessary not to notice it. Not all Islamists are terrorists, but all terrorists were Islamists. Or at least 99%.

            And in general it’s hard to imagine even if the Orthodox priest went to the crowded square, shouted Christ up to speed and blew everyone up. This has never happened. You can’t bring a better example.

            Guys, this is your religion. You and bring up your children educated people and not bloodthirsty Islamists. Then the opinion will be different. The opinion is formed not from the "media" but from personal experience. So no excuses needed!
            1. xetai9977
              xetai9977 15 August 2013 10: 26
              +1
              There is nothing surprising in your statements. You simply repeat what you hear all day on various media.
              1. Manager
                Manager 15 August 2013 10: 28
                -2
                Quote: xetai9977
                There is nothing surprising in your statements. You simply repeat what you hear all day on various media.

                I am saying what I have learned from personal experience in a little over 30 years. I say it again! There is no need to blame everything on "media". If there were no history, it would not be inflated. And if they inflate, then there is something to inflate! Thunderclouds don't just appear.
            2. igor67
              igor67 15 August 2013 15: 03
              +1
              In Orthodoxy (Christianity), suicide is a great sin, the direct road to hell, you can’t funeral suicides, I don’t know about Islam, therefore I can’t affirm or deny
              Quote: Manager
              Quote: xetai9977
              The layman is imbued with the image of a bloodthirsty Islamist with a knife in his hands and a grenade in his teeth


              And the very bloodthirsty Islamist is planting it. There is a problem of terrorism and it is unnecessary not to notice it. Not all Islamists are terrorists, but all terrorists were Islamists. Or at least 99%.

              And in general it’s hard to imagine even if the Orthodox priest went to the crowded square, shouted Christ up to speed and blew everyone up. This has never happened. You can’t bring a better example.

              Guys, this is your religion. You and bring up your children educated people and not bloodthirsty Islamists. Then the opinion will be different. The opinion is formed not from the "media" but from personal experience. So no excuses needed!
              1. Basileus
                Basileus 15 August 2013 15: 54
                +1
                Koran 4:29
                يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تأكلوا أموالكم بينكم بالباطل إلا أن تكون تجارة عن تراض منكم ولا تقتلوا أنفسكم إن الله كان بكم رحيما

                O those who believed! Do not devour your property among themselves illegally, but only through trade by your mutual consent. Do not kill yourself (each other), because Allah is merciful to you.
                1. Revolver
                  Revolver 15 August 2013 22: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Basileus
                  O those who believed! Do not devour your property among themselves illegally, but only through trade by your mutual consent. Do not kill yourself (each other), because Allah is merciful to you.

                  So after all from the text you quoted directly follows that such a relationship should be between those "who believed", ie. Muslims. And here is what the Qur'an prescribes for the unbelievers:

                  2 (191). And kill them [the infidels], wherever you meet them, expel them from the places from which they expelled you, because for them delusion is worse than death at your fingertips.

                  2 (193). Fight with them until disbelief disappears and faith in Allah is established. If they cease [to be unfaithful], then there should be no hostility, except to the wicked.

                  3 (28). Believers may not be friends with unbelievers besides believers. And if someone is friends with unbelievers, then he will not deserve any reward from Allah, except when you are in danger from them.
                  (i.e. if they are stronger than you and can pose a threat to you, then be friends. And if you are stronger, then exterminate.)

                  Enough? If not, then I can continue to quote. Islam and Muhammad personally will not look better from this. Even Hitler, in Mein Kampf, did not use such open calls for murder and genocide, even against Jews.
                  1. Basileus
                    Basileus 16 August 2013 07: 43
                    0
                    If it’s hard for you to read Russian, then please go to the American sites. I was not asked about the killing of infidels.

                    Read the Quran. There are people about the Scriptures, and about infidels. So do not talk about something that you absolutely do not know.
      2. ed65b
        ed65b 15 August 2013 09: 40
        +1
        Yes, Rauf Christians have already been declared a threat. There is an almost direct clash between Muslims and Christians. They are slaughtered and destroyed by churches. Here is the west and organized a batch between the Sunnis and Shiites. divide and rule.
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 15 August 2013 09: 49
          +6
          Edward, and I mean the same. There is a game where all means are good. "You have rich mineral resources? So we're coming to you!" And for this it is necessary that there be chaos in the country. And on command there is a processing of the layman. Threw off a couple of reports - and you're done. What does Islam, Christianity, Buddhism have to do with it? Pure politics!
          1. Manager
            Manager 15 August 2013 10: 15
            +1
            Quote: xetai9977
            Edward, and I mean the same thing.


            So let's live in peace. Educate your children that they would not be evil little men! In order to respect those laws and traditions upon arrival in other cities. It used to be in the USSR. And now your youth is simply insolent. Here educate them and there will be no problems!
    3. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 15 August 2013 11: 17
      -3
      The main threat to civilization is a flag next to your nickname.
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 15 August 2013 16: 49
        +1
        If you contact me, then I didn’t seem to have drunk with you (non-drinker), and I ask me not to "poke". As for the flag, I am proud of this flag. Generally it is useful to know the history. Before the Crusades (by the way, the crusaders were ever fierce!), Europeans had a very vague idea of ​​what culture, hygiene, comfort, etc., I don't want to repeat myself, but what you and your like-minded people preach, accusing Islam of all sins, do not add you friends. Action breeds opposition. There was no radicalism until they began to unceremoniously interfere in the affairs of the Middle East, humiliating and plundering peoples, planting their own puppets.
        1. Manager
          Manager 15 August 2013 17: 05
          +1
          Quote: xetai9977
          There was no radicalism until they began to unceremoniously intervene in the affairs of the countries of the Middle East, humiliating and robbing peoples, planting their puppets.

          Lord, shout such nonsense! The Islamic and Arab peoples as a whole were the most bloodthirsty in history! At least remember the Turks.
          1. xetai9977
            xetai9977 15 August 2013 20: 40
            +2
            I'm afraid you have come up with an image for yourself, and you can’t step over the frame. Everything is clear with you. Everyone remains unconvinced.
        2. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 15 August 2013 18: 45
          +3
          Forgive me generously, my kament refers to the user with the nickname "Nagant", your flag does not cause negative emotions in me.
          And by the way, you should not see Islamophobes in everyone, for my 600 kament, I have never voiced such a point of view.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. xetai9977
            xetai9977 15 August 2013 20: 38
            +1
            I confess, I thought it was you who told me. I always knew you as a cultured person. No problem, forget it! drinks
  3. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 15 August 2013 08: 19
    +1
    Personally, I see not the "fatal mistake" of the West, but for the time being its relatively effective game of organizing the spending of the resources accumulated by Islam for "showdown" with each other. This game is desirable for the West (to maintain the leadership of Western civilization), beneficial to Russia (distracting attention from its strengthening) and China (for the same reason as Russia + the West is also weakening). Actually, there is only one problem - to keep the situation under at least relative control.
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 15 August 2013 09: 40
      0
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Personally, I see not the "fatal mistake" of the West, but for the time being its relatively effective game of organizing the spending of the resources accumulated by Islam for "showdown" with each other. This game is desirable for the West (to maintain the leadership of Western civilization), beneficial to Russia (distracting attention from its strengthening) and China (for the same reason as Russia + the West is also weakening). Actually, there is only one problem - to keep the situation under at least relative control.

      Something like this.
  4. a52333
    a52333 15 August 2013 08: 48
    +1
    The most "unpleasant" offshoot of Islam is Wahhabism, the official religion of the SA. This is the most aggressive and orthodox trend of Islam.
  5. pinecone
    pinecone 15 August 2013 09: 30
    +1
    Quote: xetai9977
    ... Western Christian countries (USA, Britain, France, etc.) everywhere stick their noses, heat up civil strife, rob countries, instill a spirit of consumerism. Well, has it become easier?


    What kind of Christian are they when they sell out church buildings, close monasteries, prohibit the wearing of crosses, ordain pederast bishops, etc.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 15 August 2013 09: 55
      +4
      You ask the nagan. He will say that the Islamists are to blame for this.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 16 August 2013 05: 18
        0
        And you don’t sign for me, I can express my opinion without your help. Moreover, in this particular case it completely does not coincide with your idea of ​​him.
  6. dc120mm
    dc120mm 15 August 2013 11: 05
    +1
    Many thanks to the author !!! Very interesting article. A big plus. +
  7. ed65b
    ed65b 15 August 2013 11: 37
    +2
    I am categorically against the imposition of Islamophobic sentiments in our country. I emphasize our Islam. Our religion is very tolerant of other faiths. Nowhere in Russia, with the possible exception of some Caucasian regions corrupted by Wahhabism, are there no anti-Christian sentiments. There is a skillful game on the feelings of people and an odious interpretation of events. (I do not consider the activities of ethnic criminal groups.)
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 15 August 2013 14: 43
      +4
      It's just that none of the Islamophobes was in the Muslim regions. In Ufa, there are fewer mosques than churches, and much, but no one considers this as oppression, and no one is trying to make it the basis for anti-Christian / anti-Islamic propaganda.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 15 August 2013 15: 00
        0
        Quote: Basileus
        It's just that none of the Islamophobes was in the Muslim regions. In Ufa, there are fewer mosques than churches, and much, but no one considers this as oppression, and no one is trying to make it the basis for anti-Christian / anti-Islamic propaganda.

        I mean the same.
  8. Bakht
    Bakht 16 August 2013 00: 11
    0
    Quote: Nagan
    Quote: xetai9977
    Then, on the other hand, Christianity will be declared a threat - these are Western Christian countries (USA, Britain, France, etc.) everywhere they stick their nose, heat up civil strife, rob countries, instill a spirit of consumerism.

    There is a difference.
    Last time under the slogan of Christianity "Deus vult!" (God wants it) the war was in the 13th century (crusade). And the Islamists terrorize, kill, and rape while screaming "Alla, I'm going to the bar!" these days.

    Primitivism.

    The last attack on Russia from the West was in 1941. This is sheer power. And the "cold" continues today. Russia has nothing to do with Western civilization. The last crusade of the 13th century was against Russia. The Pope gave an indulgence to the destruction of "schismatics", that is, Orthodox. And the crusaders from all over Europe went on the attack. The Order of the Swordsmen was created precisely against Russia. That crusade was stopped on the ice of Lake Peipsi. The threat to civilization was carried by the crusader monks. On their conscience are several destroyed civilizations on Earth.

    Now about Islam. Read L.N. Gumilyov. Now comes the 14th century Hijra. You probably know what the Inquisition did in the 14th century from the Nativity of Christ. This is not an excuse for extremism and terrorism. But confusing Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as a phenomenon is completely wrong. It does not matter Shiites or Sunnis. The truth is that a religious war is going on. But who sponsors it is a question.

    To put it mildly - primitive.
  9. Bakht
    Bakht 16 August 2013 09: 52
    +1
    Quote: Nagan
    Quote: Basileus
    O those who believed! Do not devour your property among themselves illegally, but only through trade by your mutual consent. Do not kill yourself (each other), because Allah is merciful to you.

    So after all from the text you quoted directly follows that such a relationship should be between those "who believed", ie. Muslims. And here is what the Qur'an prescribes for the unbelievers:

    2 (191). And kill them [the infidels], wherever you meet them, expel them from the places from which they expelled you, because for them delusion is worse than death at your fingertips.

    2 (193). Fight with them until disbelief disappears and faith in Allah is established. If they cease [to be unfaithful], then there should be no hostility, except to the wicked.

    3 (28). Believers may not be friends with unbelievers besides believers. And if someone is friends with unbelievers, then he will not deserve any reward from Allah, except when you are in danger from them.
    (i.e. if they are stronger than you and can pose a threat to you, then be friends. And if you are stronger, then exterminate.)

    Enough? If not, then I can continue to quote. Islam and Muhammad personally will not look better from this. Even Hitler, in Mein Kampf, did not use such open calls for murder and genocide, even against Jews.

    You have a wrong idea about the Quran. This is due to the misinterpretation of the word "infidels" (such a taftologia). The point is that Islam recognizes three Prophets. Isa, Musa and Muhammad. As you might guess, Isa is Jesus, Musa is Moses, and Muhammad is his own. The Koran forbade converting Christians and Jews to Islam (only if they themselves express a desire). Therefore, for example, the Albanians have preserved Christianity. Like the Armenians. Nobody forced them. Another thing is that those who converted to Islam were given economic preferences. Three religions in Islam are recognized as "correct". All the others in the Qur'an are called "infidels". Christians (Catholics) do not recognize any other religion than their own. Like the Jews.

    Christianity carried the "light of Civilization" with fire and cross. And the conversion of the pagans was accompanied by such atrocities that the Muslims can rest for another hundred years. Let's say the territory of Germany was entirely Slavic. Or the Baltics.

    And finally. Sitting in the States you can hate Islam. This is your personal worldview. In Russia, with its huge Muslim population, this policy is suicidal.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 16 August 2013 11: 03
      0
      Well. Why did you explain? A man lives in his own world, created by his government and the media controlled by this government, pulling quotes from the Koran, which he found in the communities of the same hamsters, although he did not see suras in his eyes. This is pointless, I would like to - I would have found it myself long ago, but he prefers xenophobic blinders.