Iran vs. Saudi Arabia: Hamas v. Hezbollah

[Rex Brynen]

Interested in other's takes on this theme...my personal agenda is to look for a disruption between Shias and Sunnis...recognizing that we now have two "theocratic" models, Iran, a Shi'a model, and of course Syria and Saudi Arabia, both Sunni models.

Syria is very far from a Sunni theocracy, given that it is ruled by the (semi-secular, supposedly non-confessional) Ba'th Party, with the (non-Sunni, heterodox Shiite-offshot) Alawi minority exercising disproportionate influence in the Party and Army.

If "theocracy" is understood to be a system where men of religion rule directly, then Saudi Arabia isn't quite one—for all its Wahhabi piety, it is the royal family and not the ulama who rule.

Iran is one, albeit limited by both a written constitution and quasi-elective components (the majlis and the presidency).

[Schmedlap]

If we are to accept that Syria or Saudi Arabia are theocracies - I think Rex makes a good case against it - but, for the sake of argument, Iran seems to be a very different breed of theocracy. I think the Mullahs really believe in their state-sanctioned-twelver-Khomeini-BS and truly feel an obligation to impose it on the country. I think the House of Saud, on the other hand, would grasp for anything that gave them legitimacy. If the Saudi Arabian people suddenly stopped caring about Islam and only cared about soccer, then the House of Saud would be swapping their traditional garb for Manchester United jerseys and turning Mecca into a giant soccer stadium. Divine right is almost always an excuse to rule, not a geniune belief. I think Iran is that rare exception.

[George L. Singleton]

Rex and Schmedlap you are both in the ballpark and here is a citation/literal copy of commonly understood meaning of the term "Islamic Republic" which is the terminology I might have better used as found on the Internet at

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

Islamic Republic is the name given to several states in the Muslim world including the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Mauritania. Pakistan adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi government. Afghanistan adopted it after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.

The term "Islamic republic" has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to others. Theoretically, to many religious leaders, it is a state under a particular theocratic form of government advocated by some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa. It is seen as a compromise between a purely Islamic Caliphate, and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some laws of Sharia, and not a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently. In other cases, it is merely a symbol of cultural identity, as was the case when Pakistan adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. In fact many argue that an Islamic Republic strikes a middle path between a completely secular and a theocratic (and/or Orthodox Islamic) system of government.

Iran's Islamic republic is in contrast to the semi-secular state of the Republic of Pakistan (proclaimed as an Islamic Republic in 1956) where Islamic laws are technically considered to override laws of the state, though in reality their relative hierarchy is ambiguous.

Pakistan was the first country to adopt Islamic prefix to define its republican status under the otherwise secular constitution of 1956. Interestingly enough, despite this definition, the country did not have state religion until 1973, when a new constitution, more democratic but less secular, was adopted. Pakistan only uses the "Islamic" name on its passports and visas. All government documents are prepared under the name of the Government of Pakistan, however, Islamic republic is specifically mentioned in the Constitution of 1973. As per the Constitution of Pakistan, part IX, article 227 " All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions "[1].

Today, the creation of an Islamic State is the rallying cry for many Muslims, including those described as Islamists, all over the world. However the term itself has different meanings among various people. Many advocate the abolition of the monarchies of the Middle East, regimes which they believe to be overly authoritarian or otherwise repressive to Islam, in some cases, to be replaced with a unified and monolithic Caliphate[2] and in other cases Islamic Republics along national lines.

At present the Sunni radicals/terrorists are persecuring/murdering the Shi'as in Northern Pakistan and in Afghanistan. You and others may want to comment on this.

There have long been distinctions/differences origninating from the death of Muhammad and how his sucessor(s) were and are viewed since that time which of course created and cause today the differences between Shi'a and Sunni, and allow for more moderate sub-sects such as that of HRJ the Agha Khan and his followers, which are a Shi'a off shoot sometimes referred to as Islamis.

Other comments, critiques most welcome.

[davidbfpo]

I completly missed this news in early March 2009, that Iran had renewed its claim that Bahrain was a lost province:
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal.../iran_e005.htm

Note that Bahrain has long struggled to be unified, with a Shia minority, a factor that may inflience this old claim being renewed and then denied.

Yes, from an Israeli author and a respected institute IMHO.

davidbfpo

[George L. Singleton]

David, open thanks for this worthy posting.

Iran is far from negotiable with the non-Muslim world and even within the Muslim world is a questionable process...I still am puzzled that Iran would fund both Hezbullah, Shi'a and Hamas, Sunni,but the amount or value of Hamas funding appears to be less for Hamas, unless someone can correct me on this point.

Cheers.

[Schmedlap]

If we could pay Hezbollah to finish of al-Qaeda, I'm sure that we would. Enemy of our enemy. Likewise for Iran's funding of Hamas and possibly AQI.

[AmericanPride]

Iran has always struggled to be central to Middle East politics -- it's ethnic/national identity is more problematic than its religious. How does Iran make itself compatible with the Arab world without taking up the campaign against Israel? Not sure about how viable an Iranian-AQ relationship would be, given AQ's theological position on Shia's, and the perceived danger of Iran to the Arabian peninsula. There's certainly some competition in the two fundamentalisms of Iran and SA, but it's more about access to the Persian Gulf (and perhaps Iraq?), with some ethnic and religious spice thrown into the mix. Despite the religious veil, Iranian security and economic organization is remarkably similar to that of imperial Iran.

[Ken White]

Very astute observation:

"...Despite the religious veil, Iranian security and economic organization is remarkably similar to that of imperial Iran."

No accident that. The Persian Imperial Tradition resonates far more strongly with most Iranians and virtually all ethnic Persians than does their religion. The nation has its share of fanatics but so do all nations. Darius and Cyrus are more important to most than is Mohamed.

Regaining their lost Empire and / or getting the respect due the empire is very important to them and always has been.

Keeping them from doing that has been an Arab goal for a thousand years...