Why did Islamist fundamentalist groups pop up in response to westernised, modern regimes?

Jul 28, 2017 1:23 AM

Views

77845

Likes

1152

Dislikes

43

http://imgur.com/gallery/P7ZbIas

I created this post in response to a very intriguing comment that was posted by @/Octorover's and became a top-viewed post in the FP. it's a lot of text in a post so sorry if its boring : (

I hope you guys don't mind that I'm sort of interrupting the usual nature of imgur. i just really want to help people understand complicated topics like this easily so we can engage better. a lot of times i find issues like this one it just turns into potshots and insults about islam and the middle east and stuff.
User @/Mightylink mentioned Iraq in their comment and my mind jumped to the Iranian revolution - I assumed this was what they were referring to, because it was a cultural revolution. The Iranian revolution which is often used as an example of a seemingly progressive regime in the Middle East that was resisted and overthrown by religious fundamentalist groups.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 1919-1980

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a member of the notoriously progressive and pro-Western Pahlavi dynasty that came to power in 1925. from the very beginning of his rule, he was seen as a Western puppet because his ascent to power came with a lot of help from the Allied countries in WW2 due to the fact that his father was suspected of being supportive of Nazi Germany. besides that, a brief power struggle happened in 1953 between him and his prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. He was restored to power with help from the CIA and MI6. already we have two examples of his influence from Western countries.

EDIT: As others have said in the comments, Mossadegh was democratically elected and also progressive. The main reason he was unseated was his nationalisation of oil industries and throwing the Anglo-Iranian oil industry (now known as BP) out of the country, so of course the West retaliated in its usual "fuck you, I'm me" fashion. sorry for leaving it out : )

Like his father before him, he was bent on Westernising Iran.

iranian family - 1960s

Iranian university students in 1971

Beginning in 1963 the Shah introduced a series of reforms known as the "White Revolution" that greatly modernised Iran and attempted to alienate supporters of the more traditional Iranian "way of life." Many of these reforms made the Iranian ulema (Shi'a Muslim clergy) more hostile towards the Iranian government.

These reforms included:
-land reform - redistribution and changing of laws concerning land ownership. to fund this major reform the Iranian government sold state-owned companies to private buyers. this mass privatisation is not unique and comparable to the actions of many other regimes throughout history including Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.
-railway, air, irrigation and dam construction
-more industrialisation
-increased women's rights-nationalisation of forests
-literacy programmes and disease eradication programmes targeted towards rural areas/lower classes foreign relationships with the USSR and eastern european nations

To us, these reforms probably sound like stuff that would be widely popular and helpful. In many ways, they were - the GDP per capita rose as a result, the government started procuring more money. A referendum was called to get the nation's approval on the reforms and they were overwhelmingly in support of them INITIALLY. it wasn't all fine and dandy though and problems began to develop. The regime was plagued by inflation and was accused of human rights violations by Western nations who were becoming frustrated with the Shah even though they essentially controlled him.

The White Revolution was the Shah's way of legitimising his rule among the lowest peasant class of Iran. in doing so however he gained much opposition from the aristocracy due to the expanded government size and reform, the middle class who still hung onto very traditional Muslim values, and the lower class who weren't satisfied with the reforms for a multitude of reasons.

Ruhollah Khomeini (pictured) and the Rise of Anti-Government Sentiment

The Pahlavi government set the stage for a superficially "good" government administration that had underlying problems just waiting to hit the tipping point. The main issues that spurred the revolution with the Shah's rule were:
-heavy Western involvement with the regime
-intense backlash from the middle/upper class and the ulema clergy and the speed in which the White Revolution took place. Pahlavi's father hadn't done enough to modernise the peasant class, and now he had to make up for it.
-possible violations of the Iranian constitution
-human rights abuses-economic instability-government corruption
-HUGE backfiring of land reforms: there was now a much larger elite and middle class who still opposed him, and many of the lower-class farmers who now gained land had no loyalty towards the Shah

The PERFECT conditions for a resistance to thrive, and thrive they did. Religious parties across Iran began to grow in size, and their mantras and political agendas were fueled by their distrust of the Shah and intense hatred of the westernization. 

Khomeini had previously been exiled for personally attacking the Shah in person, but he remained an influential religious leader. He began pushing the idea that Western capitalism was failing Iran, and communism was not a solution either: "Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!" In his speeches, he called the US "Greater Satan" and the USSR "Lesser Satan."

United in Hatred for the Government

There were countless other political parties in Iran that began to resist the government. they were religious and secular; democratic and anti-democratic; left-wing and right-wing. the big ones were:
-Islamic Freedom Movement of Iran lead by Mehdi Bazargan (PICTURED) who were pro-democracy
-The National Front: similar to the Freedom Movement but they were more secular
-various left-wing Marxist groups that were not as powerful due to government oppression in the 70s, but helped the revolution in its final days
-countless other Islamist, traditional, anti-western groups similar to what Khomeini supported

Although many of these groups lacked popular support and organistion, Khomeini ruthlessly and efficiently worked to unite them. basically the only people he tried to distance himself from were the Marxists, but everyone else was fair game if they hated the West and the Shah. By piecing together countless small groups, he was able to create a large, popularly-support super resistance.

The tipping point was reached in the late 70s when the oil market crashed and wealth gaps increased: the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The Shah especially became wealthier, which became political fodder in the resistance against him. 

Understandably, people were upset: the government took measures to fight the economic depression, but they negatively affected the poor. Out of desperation, even more joined anti-government groups. The government responded by censoring the press and banning all political parties except for a pro-government one

PICTURED is a pro-government demonstration

Riots broke out in January 1978 after an article condemning Khomeini was published in a newspaper by a secret government agent. In February, more riots took place across major cities, often turning deadly. They became systemic as Khomeini encouraged them. He believed martyrs needed to die for the cause to unseat the Shah.

The Shah responded slowly and poorly. iranian riot control was not well-funded nor were they trained to handle massive, nationwide riots. the Shah tried to appease the population with the promise of democracy and more reform but it was too late.

The protests cooled down during the summer months but started back up again in mid August. Martial law was imposed. The Shah exiled Khomeini and he fled to France, and the Western media kept a surprisingly neutral tone on him. they portrayed him as a man trying to liberate his people from an increasingly corrupt and unstable government. from there Khomeini encouraged protests.

In December of 1978 the Shah began to yield his power. he released political prisoners and Khomeini returned. the people of Iran were in high spirits, and the various political parties of all positions rallied behind Khomeini. They believed the power would be shared among them despite the fact that Khomeini obviously was deeply opposed to what their principles (pro-democracy and Marxist groups).

Khomeini returned to Iran in February 1979 and was greeted by a crowd of an estimated five million Iranians.

anti-government protestors in 1979

Executed generals of the Shah (sry for terrible quality)

at this point Khomeini was essentially the leader of Iran. He immediately set up supressing former allies that did not share his views. A new constitution was drafted which called for a "Supreme Leader" and administrative councils that forbid anyone deemed "unislamic" from being in the government. Iran had totally reestablished itself as a solidly pro-Islam, traditionalist, anti-Western nation in a very unique and virtually unprecedented way. i am not going to get into the details because I merely wanted to explain WHY this occurrence happened, not necessarily the nitty-gritty details of Islamist fundamentalism in action.

I should note that in 1980 neighbouring Iraq invaded in an attempt to take advantage of the completely new government that had recently been established, but by 1982 they were completely driven out of Iran.

The current government is plagued by many of the same issues the Shah's regime was. Notoriously, it has a huge issue with human rights abuse and crackdown on womens rights.

SAUCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ruhollah-Khomeini

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1872024_1826082,00.html

https://www.britannica.com/topic/20th-century-international-relations-2085155

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html

*i wrote this post myself and I am not iranian in any way, apologies for any historical innaccuracies!

EDIT: Thank you everyone so much for your feedback. how would you guys like a post covering the rise of ISIS/ISIL?

Because they're a backwards culture trapped in the middle ages

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Here's Bin Laden in the 70's. http://imgur.com/qYftxqA

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As a religious studies student, I can only thank you for providing unbiased facts. Religion can be shitty, but not always.

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

#5 so Sean Connery was working as a MI6 spy in Iran? Interesting, didn't know this.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

TL;DR anyone?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

"brief power struggle" It was a fucking coup d'etat. The real reason is the same as why the civil rights movement in the US was religious1/2

8 years ago | Likes 67 Dislikes 1

it's because places of worship were the easiest place to organize opposition to the current regime 2/2

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 2

Mate... 1st thing. Don't apologise for posting this. You've every right to post what you want here. 2nd thing. That's a very good post.

8 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

The original question is about Iraq not Iran though which is a completely different story.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ty @op. I watched Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. This one hit the ground.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Cold War geopolitics***. Not unique either. Propped up dictators suppressing and killing their citizens fell like dominos around the world.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Tl;dr-Shah was put in place by West,pushed very aggressively for progress,made some mistakes, got overthrown, new government is dictatorship

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thank you for this post

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Knowing how it turned out, the further I read the more it hurt how people were so naive.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You forgot the CIA deposing the democratically elected prime minister and reinstalling the Shah as a puppet government.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

should he also include the earlier part where the US army backed the Iranians post WWII against the British and the Soviets?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Big education post, all I can think about is that one guy that looks like an Iranian Burt Reynolds.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So what did the West do to originally get to be hated? Just meddled in places they shouldn't have or? I know we've screwed up lots since lol

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well, yeah. Political dicking around after the world wars led to a lot of trouble. Then there's all the bombing...

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

religious fundamentalism is a menace

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

On this subject I recommend to read the comic Persepolis (or watch the animated movie)! Very touching and informative.

8 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 0

There's a second issue out as well.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

"All the Shah's Men" is also a good source of information.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Would you mind doing another one of these on Palestine? I know virtually nothing about why it's such a clusterfuck there. Thanks!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I guess going to war instead of letting inspections take place wasn't a good idea after all.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Great post. Thanks.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Favorite and forget to read

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What is your point exactly? They're still horrible people currently... "bUt It'S tHeIr CuLtUrE" is not an excuse for inhumanity...

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Overcrowding and easy, fast media.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I love your post and agree there are so many opinions without knowledge to back them up. I have considered doing something like your post (1

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(2) but haven't bothered yet, so +1 for bothering

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Why did you downplay so hard the torture of opposition members and the heavy hand of the Usa in propping up the Shia?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

care to compare SAVAK vs Shia Clergy torture and death numbers for the same timespan? Iranians tortured regardless of ruler.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah, but what if he was the one who started it? You have to account for those kind of things

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

We called it COIN but it was occupation. Occupation never works out well for either side. I hated being in Afghanistan

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

occupation by foreign forces never works. reform and change should start from within society.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Germany was occupied after WWII. They turned out OK.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Japan was occupied after WWII. They turned out OK.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

They are still occupied and it has become the fucking stockholm syndrome now

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Japanese even before the war were very similar to what they were after ww2. occupation affected only their military capabilities not society

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Good read. Still it seems less like anti-westernization, and more like anti-modernization. They're too stuck in the past to live free.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 7

What we see as modernisation they see as westernisation

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

let me give you a hypothetical example, suppose you get modernization from russia but in return you get puppet president who is Russia 1/

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

friendly. would you accept that? nobody in their right sense of mind would no matter how much modernization it might bring. reform 2/

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

must start from within the society to be accepted. foreign influence will always look feel like foreign and is always unpopular.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Which is really stupid. I would accept it, as it would bring progress... why can't we evolve out of this ass backwards tribal mentality?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

As an American, we already have a Russian puppet President, can we at least get some more modernisation along with it?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Actually a very interesting read. I think Iran could be a great country - if only they could get their government sorted out. No one

8 years ago | Likes 140 Dislikes 3

"Iran could be a great country if it were a different country." That's what your statement sounds like.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

I think America could be a great country, if only they could sort out their government.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

(2) ...knows what it's like, to be the bad man. To be the sad man. Behind blue eyes.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

I feel this trivializes Mossadegh, but he was Iran's democratic choice for progressivism, but he nationalized oil production and so the CIA

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

organized a coup against him to bring the Shah back to power. All of Iran's problems can be laid at the feet of that operation. The US chose

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

oil over democracy.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Realizes that most of the 'Middle East' weren't really countries until after WWI. Oh if only those white folk had paid attention to the

8 years ago | Likes 79 Dislikes 9

Well the Iranian borders are more natural than most of its neighbours. Iraq, Syria and Israel/Palestine is something entirely different.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Tribal boundaries instead of drawing lines wherever the fuck they wanted to

8 years ago | Likes 72 Dislikes 11

Those guys attacked us first! They invaded our lands so we must do another crusade!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

Weren't the Sykes-Picot Treaty boundary lines drawn up by a clerk in a London warehouse?

8 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Oh they did, and did it on purpose to keep people fighting within themselves

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Yeah, I guess things were so much better under the ottoman empire.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now now, we can't just create stable middle eastern nations, just imagine the horror of them surpassing the West...

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Yea, could you imagine having prosperous trading partners and not having to spend millions on military interventions? The horror!!

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Given the downvote(s), I suppose I should have added a "/s" because it's apparently not clear enough.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So different ethnicities cant get along in the same country? I dont think you want to be a racist.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 27

Different tribes aren't exactly different races though.

8 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

I'm trying to point out cognitive dissonance.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Tell that to the French and Germans in 1871

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Where did they say that? They said white people tried to force tribes to get along, without knowing the situation.

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 2

I see people use this argument for why the third world is suffering and then see no problem with uncontrolled immigration into the 1st world

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1