Sunni-Shia relations, geopolitics and India

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 07 Apr 2014 23:23

Among election news in India, its interesting that while Shahi Imam (Sunni) has suggested that his sheep vote for Congress, the prominent Shi'a leader Kalbe Jawaad has cautioned his sheep to stay away from the Congress.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Apr 2014 20:39

http://www.dawn.com/news/1098781/shia-d ... in-karachi

KARACHI: At least 12 people including a Shia doctor and three madressa students were killed and several others injured in different incidents of violence in the port city, DawnNews reported on Wednesday.

The latest incident took place near Continental Bakery in Gulistan-i-Jauhar neighbourhood when unidentified attackers killed three students of an Islamic seminary. Two students sustained bullets wounds also. They are reportedly in critical condition at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC).

Enraged people took to the streets after the incident. They set ablaze push carts and forced local shop keepers to shut their businesses.

Police and Rangers personnel reached the site to disperse the angry mob.

The incident followed yet another high-profile Shia killing in the same area when Doctor Haider Raza was gunned down by unidentified attackers in front of Darul Sehat Hospital. Another man accompanying Raza in his car was injured in the attack. His identity is yet not known.

Jafaria Alliance and Pakistan Shia Ulema Council condemning the attack demanded an early arrest of the culprits.

Earlier during the day, a bomb weighing 13 kilograms was defused near Khalid Bin Waleed road in Karachi’s PECHS area.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 14 Apr 2014 08:09

http://learni.st/learnings/578142-why-s ... -worsening

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 14 Apr 2014 14:28

shiv wrote:I am unable to go into the history of violence in shia-sunni relations but the two major events that have apparntly sparked bloodshed between shias and sunnis are Zia's Islamization of Pakistan and the American invasion of Iraq.

In Pakistan there has been a proliferation of sunni groups killing shias. in Iraq there is an ongoing shia sunni conflict. There was relative peace between shias and sunnis in Iraq as long as Saddam ruled - and now that is gone and there is utter chaos.

I believe that the Americans are clearly taking sides with the sunnis - with their relationship with sunni nations like KSA, Pakistan and Egypt. On the other hand, it may be argued (as the Indian shia cleric says) that the Americans seek to provoke conflict between Muslims to keep them divided. But the Muslims are divided anyway and it was not Americans that provoked anti-shia conflict in Pakistan.

The key event in Sunni-Shia violence was actually Khomeini's success in dominating the Iranian revolution's and his subsequent decisions to
a) attempt to export the revolution to neighbouring countries ruled by Sunni minorities or pluralities - Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and eastern Saudi Arabia.
b) challenge the legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy in Islamic terms.
c) generally mobilise Shia populations everywhere in Iran's favour

An Iran that is externally stronger than Saudi Arabia does not frighten the Saudis. They lived with that under the Shah, and lived with the Shah even grabbing territory from the UAE and generally acting as the region's policeman. What frightens them is the Iranian mullah's religious authority, their ability to reach inside their borders and tweak the hearts and minds of their own citizens.

For the Saudis, religious legitimacy is a question of dynastic survival, and they are willing to use any and every weapon at their disposal.

The Saudis have used their religious influence to whip up anti-Shia sectarian hatred to contain this. The invasion of Iraq led to an upswing in the amount of sectarian hatred because the Saudis are extremely insecure about losing their two bulwarks on Iran's border - the Taliban and Saddam.

The Americans have gone along with this because the Saudis are partners but also because the mullahs in Tehran have maintained anti-Americanism is a core ideological element of the Iranian revolution. However the Saudis have deep fears that the Americans will one day come to terms to term with Iran (every American and Iranian administration has thought about doing so) and abandon the Saudis.

Zia ul-Haq when he came to power in 1977 had no problem with the Shia. He also initially chose not to take sides in the Iran-Iraq war, unlike most of the rest of the Sunni Arab world. In the end two things prevailed a) Pakistan's reliance on Saudi Arabia to fund its strategic programmes, whether the bomb or the jihad in Afghanistan b) Saudi Arabia's independent ideological and financial influence over Pakistani Islamists and jihadists which exceeds that of the Pakistani state. Sectarian warfare is the blowback the Pakistani state has had to accept in order to get the Saudis to fund all their jihads in Afghanistan and India.

In the end this really does come down to a political conflict between Riyadh and Tehran, and their buckets of oil money. The day that conflict ends, or even dies down, the Sunni-Shia conflict will retreat from the streets, from the khutbas and back into fatwas and counter-fatwas that hardly anyone reads. This possibility is far from remote.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Apr 2014 18:27

Johann wrote: In the end this really does come down to a political conflict between Riyadh and Tehran, and their buckets of oil money. The day that conflict ends, or even dies down, the Sunni-Shia conflict will retreat from the streets, from the khutbas and back into fatwas and counter-fatwas that hardly anyone reads. This possibility is far from remote.

Johann there was no real shia-sunni conflict until the Iran-Iraq war ended. That was followed by Zia massacring shias in Gilgit in 1988. Then Saddam went apeshit - and attacked Kuwait - so much for his putative role as protector of sunni monarchies. Finally it was Operation enduring freedom that led to today's shia sunni conflict - which may be sponsored by Tehran and Riyadh, but is being fought in Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Bahrain.

Tehran is mostly shia and Saudi is mostly sunni and both are not facing the consequences of the war. Where is the incentive to stop funding fighters is some other country.

What exactly makes you believe that the possibility of Tehran and Riyadh reaching accommodation is "far from remote"? I can't see any incentive for them to do that - or any advantage to either side. Also it keeps the arms industries of arms exporting nations in good working order, so who might want to end this juicy conflict?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 14 Apr 2014 19:33

1. Do Sunni's convert to Shia and vice versa or even that is wajib-ul-qatl ?

2. Other than Palestinian conflict and Jew conspiracy in any event of the world, Do Shia and Sunni look at the larger geo-political world with the same glasses or do we see them reacting differently to events that do not impact them directly.

e.g. How does election in India appear to a distant Sunni as compared to a Shia.
or Do Shia care about events in Egypt as much as Sunni's do ?
or How do Shia react to Chinese Uighur conflict ?

Answer to this Question will tell me if there is any hope left for RoP followers or if we are barking up the wrong tree.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Apr 2014 20:31

VikasRaina wrote:1. Do Sunni's convert to Shia and vice versa or even that is wajib-ul-qatl ?

2. Other than Palestinian conflict and Jew conspiracy in any event of the world, Do Shia and Sunni look at the larger geo-political world with the same glasses or do we see them reacting differently to events that do not impact them directly.

e.g. How does election in India appear to a distant Sunni as compared to a Shia.
or Do Shia care about events in Egypt as much as Sunni's do ?
or How do Shia react to Chinese Uighur conflict ?

Answer to this Question will tell me if there is any hope left for RoP followers or if we are barking up the wrong tree.

Here is an interview of an Indian shia cleric that is very interesting.
http://religion.info/english/interviews ... 0wAzY-wdox
Do read the whole thing, but relevant to part of your question

Mahan Abedin - What is the extent of Iran's influence over Indian Shiite Muslims?

Seyed Mohammad Asgari - Naturally Indian Shiites, as well as many Indian Sunnis, were delighted at the establishment of an Islamic Government in Iran in 1979. Muslims in general were emboldened by Iran's raising of the Islamic banner across the world. As far as Indian Shiites are concerned, for the past thirty years they have been delighted by Iranian successes and conversely depressed by Iranian setbacks. If there is disturbance in Iran then the Shiites in India become emotionally and psychologically distressed.

The vast majority of Indian Shiite Muslims follow two Iranian Marjaa Taqlid [11] (Sources of Emulation). The majority follow Grand Ayatollah [Seyed Ali] Sistani, who is based in Iraq but is of Iranian origin. Most of the rest follow Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Revolution. However, the great majority of Indian Shiites regard Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamanei as a political leader, even if they don't follow him in a Taqlid (Emulation) context.

Mahan Abedin - Who is your Marjaa Taqlid?

Seyed Mohammad Asgari - I follow Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei. I have personally known him since before the victory of the Islamic Revolution. I regard him as unequalled in honesty and commitment and in possession of the deepest religious, scientific and political knowledge.

Mahan Abedin - To what extent are Indian Muslims, in particular Shiites, supportive of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Seyed Mohammad Asgari - Religious Shiites universally support the Islamic Republic. This support is extensive and has a lot of conviction behind it. For example, if the leader of the Islamic Revolution Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, issues a command then religious Shiites feel duty bound to follow. As far as more secular Shiites are concerned, although they support the Islamic Republic, they don't feel committed to its future survival and success

Mahan Abedin - Do Indian Shiites view the Kashmir conflict differently to Indian Sunnis?

Seyed Mohammad Asgari - Initially the Shiites had the same aspirations about Kashmir as the Sunnis. But when the sectarian and political problems in Pakistan escalated from the mid 1990s onwards some Shiites reached the conclusion that Kashmir might suffer even worse if it was in Pakistani hands. This perception is reinforced by a steady stream of stories painting a bleak and difficult life for many Shiite residents in Pakistani-held Kashmir. However, I must stress that there are differences of opinion in the Shiite community and there are many Shiites who dissent from this view. In any case, Shiites are not happy with the present situation in Kashmir either. Clearly India has a problem in Kashmir and there is a widespread feeling that injustices are being inflicted on the Muslim population in Indian-held Kashmir.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 14 Apr 2014 23:28

Shiv, I see the prism that we look at Shia-Sunni relations is same as Pakjabi-Sindhi relations.
Bottomline, we need to neutralize both of them. It is like posters on BRF were preaching till yesterday that TSP Sindhi are peace loving Indic-like while it is the pakjabi's that are problem till the yellow matter appeared all across the room.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Apr 2014 07:57

shiv wrote:
Seyed Mohammad Asgari - Initially the Shiites had the same aspirations about Kashmir as the Sunnis. But when the sectarian and political problems in Pakistan escalated from the mid 1990s onwards some Shiites reached the conclusion that Kashmir might suffer even worse if it was in Pakistani hands. This perception is reinforced by a steady stream of stories painting a bleak and difficult life for many Shiite residents in Pakistani-held Kashmir. However, I must stress that there are differences of opinion in the Shiite community and there are many Shiites who dissent from this view. In any case, Shiites are not happy with the present situation in Kashmir either. Clearly India has a problem in Kashmir and there is a widespread feeling that injustices are being inflicted on the Muslim population in Indian-held Kashmir.

This is exactly the behaviour we discussed earlier on. Sunnis and ShiatAlis would join together against the kafir Indians. When it comes to Ahl-e-Kitab, they may or may not, for that depends upon the exigencies of the situation. But, against a kafir nation, they would sink their differences temporarily.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2014 08:14

VikasRaina wrote:Shiv, I see the prism that we look at Shia-Sunni relations is same as Pakjabi-Sindhi relations.
Bottomline, we need to neutralize both of them. It is like posters on BRF were preaching till yesterday that TSP Sindhi are peace loving Indic-like while it is the pakjabi's that are problem till the yellow matter appeared all across the room.

No Vikas. No prism is intended to be conjured up.

This thread is not about neutralization of anyone, but to document what makes muslims kill muslims. The fact that they will kill kafirs if handy is old information that everyone on here knows about. This is about killing. Not lovemaking. Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. The fact that they may cooperate to kill kafirs is a separate issue - but Islam based justification is being created to kill other muslims. That means that there are laws and mechanisms that allow free for all murder and mayhem, no matter what anyone may argue about love and peace in and brotherhood of all Muslims in theory. Since this is a life or death question - like AIDS or walking into a minefield, I believe it should be common knowledge for all people. That cannot come from secular discussions or wink wink nudge nudge. The news items are open about killikngs. What is hidden are the justifications and excuses used for that killing - all based on some Islamic clause/cause.

There has to be a corpse by corpse documentation of the hate that makes shias and sunnis kill each other so those of us who are neither shia nor sunni can understand internal dynamics and not get hoodwinked by rhetoric. Or fooled by idiotic assertions about who can kill whom under what circumstances.

partha · Post by **partha** » 15 Apr 2014 08:44

shiv wrote: Here is an interview of an Indian shia cleric that is very interesting.
http://religion.info/english/interviews ... 0wAzY-wdox
Do read the whole thing, but relevant to part of your question

Mahan Abedin - To what extent are Indian Muslims, in particular Shiites, supportive of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Seyed Mohammad Asgari - Religious Shiites universally support the Islamic Republic. This support is extensive and has a lot of conviction behind it. For example, if the leader of the Islamic Revolution Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, issues a command then religious Shiites feel duty bound to follow. As far as more secular Shiites are concerned, although they support the Islamic Republic, they don't feel committed to its future survival and success

Very interesting indeed. Have saved the link.

>>if the leader of the Islamic Revolution Grand Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, issues a command then religious Shiites feel duty bound to follow

What if the Ayatollah asks Indian Shiites to rebel against and overthrow kufr Indian state? People who complain that their patriotism and loyalty is always questioned should pause and think why.

Indian Muslim press in 1971.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... press.html

In India the Muslim press generally condemned the severity of the military action, but not always in such unequivocal terms as were used by the national press. Some Muslim journals felt the government of Pakistan had no other recourse left to it to obtain a modicum of law and order in East Bengal. They supported their stance with reports of the atrocities perpetrated by Bengali mobs in Dacca, Rajshahi and Chittagong in the days immediately before the military action and which had been glossed over in the national press in general. When an unequivocal condemnation of the Pakistani action was issued by Maulvi As'ad Madani, a Congressite Muslim, the Jamiat Times, for example, wrote this rejoinder (Delhi; 23 April 1971): "You don't know what brutalities were committed by the Bengalis against the non-Bengalis. You should ask the grieving relatives in Delhi. Destiny never forgives a tyrant." A similar opinion was expressed by Maulana Minnatullah Rahmani of Monghyr (Bihar) when he refused to sign the statement of condemnation circulated by Jayaprakash Narayan on behalf of the Insani Biradari. The Maulana said, "Why must you now condemn Pakistan when earlier you did not condemn India for communal riots? The Bengalis did more brutal things to the non-Bengalis." (Reported in the Jamiat Times of 11 June 1971.)

Phase Four (After the War)

For a majority of Indian Muslims, the pervasive mood in the days immediately after the war was a mixture of despair, confusion, and anger. In terms of actual acts and deeds, of course, they behaved no differently from their non-Muslim compatriots, but emotionally, unlike the latter, they could be neither jubilant nor sanguine. The following quotation from Haqeeqat (Lucknow: n.d.) conveys well the feelings at that time:

"The chief reason for the resentment of the Muslims is that the event of the independence of Bangladesh and her severance of all ties with Pakistan was generally celebrated in India as if the 'victory' had been gained against the Muslims themselves. Insulting and provocative slogans were raised against them in public meetings in this country. A second reason is that the Muslims in general do believe that the war was primarily fought for the purpose of destroying the integral unity of Pakistan. Our Ministry of Information hands out all sorts of propaganda but does nothing to dispel the dejection and resentment of Indian Muslims" (Quoted in Sidq-i-Jadid; 21 January 1972).

How confused and desperate their thinking was at that time can also be gauged from a most outrageous explanation offered by Nida-i-Millat of Lucknow. In its issue of 16 January 1972, it reprinted prominently an item from the Akhbar-al-Alam-al-Islami, the official journal of the Rabita-al-Alam-al-Islami (Muslim World League), published from Mecca. According to the undisclosed sources of the organisation, 300 Zionist agents were sent by Israel to Bangladesh for the purpose of fomenting trouble and training Bengali rebels. It was also asserted that Rahman Sobhan, a prominent economist and radical of Bangladesh, had met in Paris with Daniel Cohn-Bendit ("a Jew"), who then went on to Israel to arrange for the agents while Rahman Sobhan himself came to India to coordinate plans with Indian communists. After reprinting this illuminating report, the worthy editor of Nida-i-Millat added the following comment: "We are abstaining from commenting on this article because only the future will tell what the facts were and what actually caused the secession of East Pakistan. We only desire our country to be aware of the delicate (nazuk) sentiments and feelings of the Muslim world, especially of the Arabs."

Read full section under Phase 4 after the war.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 15 Apr 2014 14:28

shiv wrote:Johann there was no real shia-sunni conflict until the Iran-Iraq war ended. That was followed by Zia massacring shias in Gilgit in 1988. Then Saddam went apeshit - and attacked Kuwait - so much for his putative role as protector of sunni monarchies. Finally it was Operation enduring freedom that led to today's shia sunni conflict - which may be sponsored by Tehran and Riyadh, but is being fought in Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain all cracked down hard on their Shia populations after 1979. The result was a cycle of bombings, hijackings, and more repressions through the early 1980s.

The same thing happened in Iraq under Saddam (who also banned Ashura processions), but in Saddam's Iraq this was not accompanied by the kind of theological condemnation that encouraged ordinary Sunnis to hate ordinary Shia. Being Shia under Saddam was like being gay in the US military under Clinton and Bush 'Dont ask, Dont tell.'

The result of all of this is that Saudis spent a *lot* of money after 1979 persuading Sunnis around the world that the Shia were 'worse than the Jews.'

In most parts of the world they were either a poor, scared minority that could be beaten and killed and persecuted at will by the state (like most of the Gulf), or they had the upper hand like Iran.

Lebanon is a place where they went from a poor scared underclass to a powerful plurality in the late 1970s and early 1980s by arming themselves with Iranian help. But Lebanon is an unusual place in the Muslim world because neither Sunnis nor Shia were in majority. Every sect had their own militia, and everyone fought everyone at some point for their piece of turf.

Pakistan is different from a lot of the rest of Muslim world because it was one of the only Sunni majority countries in the world where you had rich, practicing Shia who were fully integrated into the establishment and not apologetic about their identity. That's why in Pakistan there is a definite class element to the conflict. When the SSP was launched in Jhang in 1986 it was the lower middle class stirring hatred against a Shia land-owning class. But one of the things about the Pakistani establishment and the educated classes is that they do seem to try to protect each other. That leaves the poorer Shia vulnerable - like the Hazara in Quetta, or the Ismailis in Gilgit, although eventually the Aga Khan's influence did buy the latter a measure of protection.

There's also a sub-sectarian, and sub-sub-sectarian conflict going on in Pakistan. To my knowledge targeted anti-Shia violence in Pakistan has been almost exclusively carried out by Deobandi groups. While the Ahle Hadith in theological terms also condemn the Shia, the majority Barelvi and Jamaati Islam don't at all ready to endorse it. And even within the Deobandi community the question of sectarian violence is a dividing line - there just isn't the consensus to go takfiri on them that there was against the Ahmadis going all the way back to the 1930s. Violence is intensifying, but consensus is fragmenting.

What exactly makes you believe that the possibility of Tehran and Riyadh reaching accommodation is "far from remote"? I can't see any incentive for them to do that - or any advantage to either side. Also it keeps the arms industries of arms exporting nations in good working order, so who might want to end this juicy conflict?

Because this started with Khomeini's dream of becoming the spiritual leader the ummah as a whole, including Sunnis. Its a rather unusual ambition for a Shi'a Ayatollah, and its rooted in his very specific version of the Islamic revolution. Its this ambition that attacks the Al-Saud/al-Wahhab team on their home turf, which is what they care most about.

Khomeini told Sunnis that the Saudis were a bunch of corrupt American lackeys whom real Muslims should overthrow - and given that this was the first successful Islamic revolution in couple of centuries, there were Sunnis who were listening. Especially in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is one of the reasons the Saudis banned them from operating in the Gulf, and opposed Morsi in Egypt.

Its not at all clear that the next generation of Iranian leadership, even within the existing regime wants to do anything more than pay lip service to Khomeini's brand of Islamism. They have to appeal to a very different generation of Iranians that are much less religious, much more cultural rather than religious in their nationalism, and less obsessed with the ummah, Islam and the Great Satan.

Its not as if Iranian-Saudi rivalry will go away, certainly not while they are the two of the biggest energy exporters in the world. But I think its much more likely to return to something closer to the historical norm, which is more about 'secular' power politics rather than religious legitimacy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2014 14:52

Johann, given that killings of shias by sunnis has gone on since 1979 - which was 35 years ago - you have at least three generations of shias and sunnis killing each other. What makes you think that a "new generation" of leaders in Iran will somehow reverse the mayhem of the last 3 generations.

I think your statement that things might change sounds like "fingers crossed/high hopes" to me. Slavery ended in the US nearly 150 years ago but blacks were being lynched in the US in my own lifetime - so it is probably naive to believe that people who have lost fathers, brothers, sons, eyes, arms and legs are simply going to stop because the Ayatollah and the Poobah of KSA go all kissy kissy.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 15 Apr 2014 15:44

Shiv,

I'm not saying sectarian hatred will vanish. As you say, hurt and hatred can take generations to fade

I'm being actually rather hard headed about what sustains *organised* violence however.

It takes money to put out a message. It takes money to sustain organisations.

The Saudi royal family is pretty straightforwardly Machiavellian. They aren't going to waste their money on supporting sectarian hatred and violence unless it actually secures a vital end for themselves, namely their personal and financial security.

Whites in the American south started out with the belief that Africans and blacks did not fully qualify as human beings. The ruling classes in the American South fully supported and encouraged the use violence for a century after emancipation to keep blacks from exercising the rights the North had proclaimed.

Shiites on the other hand have been full participants in the Pakistani ruling class both before and after Partition. There has been no real social or economic conflict between Pakistan's ruling class and Pakistan's Shia population. Unless that somehow changes, its the external factors that matter when it comes to organised violence.

Unless of course you have a lower middle class driven Sunni revolution.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 Apr 2014 15:49

And of course, unless the Sunni-Shiite divide is maintained by the efforts of non-Muslims, through either sect.

Is there a margin for non-Muslims, at the moment and given the prevalent Islamist worldview, in any real reduction of Sunni-Shia hostility?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 16 Apr 2014 15:19

JEM

In South Asia's case there's potentially very significant gains from any reduction in Tehran-Riyadh tensions in terms of reduced desire to support Sunni extremism in Af-Pak to flank Iran. The Chinese would benefit from that as well.

In the case of the US its much more mixed. There would be a reduction is support to jihadists outside the non-Arab Muslim world, like Af-Pak which makes things easier. On the other hand the Saudis and most of the GCC will still use jihadis to fight any movement in the Arab world that supports either republican form of government, or consultative government to protect their monopoly on power at home. The Arab monarchies had a desperate need to Islamise and jihadise the Arab Spring before it could turn into something even enormously dangerous to them.

I'm not sure the Israelis would welcome it at all. It would eliminate the basis for their quiet understanding with the Saudis since 1979 and double their number of enemies - unless the reason the conflict ended was some kind of nationalist change of regime ideology in Tehran that gave up the Iranian revolution's obsession with Israel/Palestine.

Russia is probably somewhere in between all of these.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Apr 2014 15:39

The question was half-rhetorical Johann, as you know no doubt. But the point is nevertheless reinforced, i.e. that apart from the possibility of reduced desire on the part of Riyadh to support Sunni extremism in Pak to outflank Iran, there really is no particular interest on anyone's part to reduce the sectarian hostility. And, of course, the Paks are doing a good job of generating Sunni extremism themselves - and for their own interests - over and beyond what Riyadh may wish for.

Net net, one could say that we can all look forward to a sustained period of violence generated by Sunni-Shiite rivalry across the board, and gradually spreading. Every effort will be made to stop it from spreading out into non-Muslim countries, but we can expect sporadic incidents at a frequency greater than what has been the case, say, since the 1960s. I'm also not seeing any major upside to the discouragement of said hostility within the "Islamic world". This might be the way, eventually, for the Muslims themselves to decide that root and branch reform is not just essential, but vital to the survival of the faith in recognisable form.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2014 22:43

From Indian point of view I would like KSA to be cut down to size by having the East KSA which is Shia majority are assert their Westphalian/self determination rights.

This is for the Ibn Saudi constant support of terrorist against India.Plain no hard feelings. As Old Testament says "An eye for an eye...." and all that. I really dont care for their internal politics but supporting terrorists against India should have consequences.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Apr 2014 23:55

ramana wrote:From Indian point of view I would like KSA to be cut down oto size by having the East KSA which is Shia majority are assert their Westphalian/self determination rights.

This is for the Ibn Saudi constant support of terrorist against India.Plain no hard feelings. As Old Testament says "An eye for an eye...." and all that. I really dont care for their internal politics but supporting terrorists against India should have consequences.

We should entertain going one step further by entering into an entente with Iran. It has win-win potential all across the board and would get the overt support of Russia, without much of a resistance from the west, if they are smart enough to understand that if Iran-US cannot patch up, then it is in US interests too, to keep Iran at least within the tent, instead of pissing from outside, even if allied with opponents and other future competitors. I am putting India in the competitor category against the US.

With Shale oil/gas, enhanced carbon resource discoveries, Iraq in shia ambit, we can risk pissing of the Saudis. At a socio-political level too, the threat to Shias in Pakistan needs to be managed. A captive nearby market, geo-political shia influence in the sub continent and a large military, navy and air force along with space assets, should appeal to Iran. Wish we had not wasted these last 10 years. We need some good NSA, MEA and Defense minister in place, who will execute.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 18 Apr 2014 21:54

^^^ I second that point. Get Iran on board and ensure that Kassem Suleimani is also on board with it. Will be a lot more easier. Besides, with Russia and Iran getting friendly (friendlier, rather); its time we did some real movement too.

Will the IPI pipeline ever fructify? And oh, while we are at it, why not a few central Asian countries too. Will be a nice geopol move to check point China too?

We surely need the gas and the energy solutions for our future exponential needs. and we will need to act smartly to ensure that the paths are set and also safe guarded.

of course OTOH, KSA, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait etc, Turkey will be green with envy if moves like this are done. So, its also important to strike a balance. Besides, US will also feel slighted because it might be a challenge to the petrodollar? [While we are at it, we should get into a partial INR/Iranian conversion and not totally USD denominated trade]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Apr 2014 09:45

Johann wrote:Shiv,
It takes money to put out a message. It takes money to sustain organisations.

Johann you have provided a secular explanation for a religious issue and have tippy-toed around one vital aspect

Two things here
1. Message
2. Money

If the money goes the message will not go. It may just become dormant.

Now please tell me what the message is. it is just as important that everyone knows and understands the message that all this money is spreading and what message it is that can lead to bestial killing provided the money is there.

Would you be able to say something about the message that is being spread with money. What is the message? What are the origins of the message? Will the message disappear or merely hide if there is no money. Would the message restart murder once money becomes available. is there any chance that the message will lead to more war and more killing of people? Can anything be done about the message? If so, what can be done?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2014 20:37

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Worl ... 163950.cms

Around 97 per cent of Pakistan's 180 million population is Muslim, the vast majority Sunnis.

Violence against Shia Muslims, who make up around 20 per cent, has been growing in recent years, much of it led by extremist sectarian groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

<snipping out news of Hindu, Christian and Ahmedi killings in Pakistan as OT here>

"Minorities in Pakistan are increasingly feeling insecure since the present government came to power in June last year," he told reporters.

Peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban could have "immense repercussions" on religious minorities, he warned.

The Taliban, whose seven-year insurgency has claimed thousands of lives, want to impose strict sharia Islamic law across Pakistan.

"It is a choice of the government if it wants to have negotiations with the Pakistani Taliban but these negotiations should not come at the cost of religious minorities and women," said Rehman.

Nearly 200 Shiites were killed in the first seven weeks of 2013, most in two huge bombings in the southwestern city of Quetta, a flashpoint for sectarian violence.

The rights group said that since the present government came to power the trend had shifted from large-scale attacks to individual killings targeting Shiite doctors, lawyers and intellectuals.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 Apr 2014 21:58

http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/ ... ing-16020/

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2014 – Last week, the world’s first ever “Anti Shia Alliance” convention was held in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. The event was attended by thousands of participants, who called for “jihad” against Shia Muslims. Several government officials were in attendance. During the conference, a Shiite journalist who was covering the program for Ahlulbait Indonesia, reported being detained, interrogated, and beaten by group organizers and attendees.

The alliance is a coalition of various groups who all maintain an anti-Shia agenda, including the Anti-Heresy Front, led by Ahmad bin Zein al-Kaff.

The convention resulted in an “Anti Shia Declaration” which reads as follows:

The anti-Shia declaration

The alliance is a preaching forum to promote virtues and prevent abominable acts.
The alliance will take any necessary measures to maximize the prevention of the proliferation of heretical teachings by Shia followers.
The alliance will forge good relations with other preaching organizations.
The alliance will demand that the government immediately ban Shia and revoke all licenses for foundations, organizations and institutions owned by Shiites.
In a speech, bin Zein al-Kaff said “It’s time that we declared jihad against them…We should not tolerate them anymore.”

Another part of the alliance, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) had its members attend wearing black ski masks and camouflage clothing, with shirts that said “Heresy Hunters.”

The Jakarta Globe quotes the group’s leader, Tardjono Abu Muas, as saying “We all have to understand that Shia has tainted the true Islamic teaching… Our government should be like the Malaysian government.” The Malaysian government has increasingly banned the practice of Shia Islam within their country, and has been criticized by Human Rights Watch for human rights violations against the Shiite minority.

Another leader in the organization, Athian Ali said that more than 100 Muslim clerics attended the event.

READ ALSO: Controversial 9/11 Museum set to open in New York

The Jakarta Globe writes that anti Shia attitudes are a key component of upcoming elections in Indonesia, “[The Anti Shia Alliance] was borne out in the message to the crowd from Muhammad Al Khaththath, the secretary general of the Indonesian Ulema and Congregation Forum, or FUUI, which in 2012 issued a call to build ‘anti-Shiite posts’ saying ‘We will support any candidate who wants to make an MOU to purge the Shiites from Indonesia. If [Subianto] is ready to do that. he will become the president.’ ”

Ahmad Cholil Ridwan, a leader from the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI), attended the event and also spoke of the need to “purge the Shiites” from the country.

According to the Jakarta Globe, announcements made before the convention stated the Anti-Shia Alliance event would be “attended by officials including West Java Governor Ahmad Heryawan and Ahmad Cholil Ridwan, a leader of the Indonesian Council of Ulema, or MUI, the highest Islamic authority in the country.”

After extensive backlash, the West Java Governor announced he would not attend the Anti Shia Alliance meeting, but refused to speak out against the convention. Instead, Governor Heryawan sent his assistant, Ahmad Hadadi, who openly supported the conference.

READ ALSO: Muslim clerics stay one step ahead of Zionists with anti-Mars fatwa: a sort-of-satire

According to DureanAsean, Indonesia has a history of antipathy towards Shias, reporting “[Indonesian] Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali previously called Shia Islam heretical, saying that it deviated from principal Islamic teachings.

“Persecution of Shia followers has escalated in the past few years. In 2012, Tajul Muluk, a Shia leader from Sampang, East Java, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for blasphemy.

“In the same year, a mob set fire to dozens of Shiite homes in Sampang, killing two Shia followers and forcing hundreds of others to take refuge in Sidoarjo, around 100 kilometers away.”

The Jakarta Post reported that after the Sampang burning “Some [victims] were even forced to convert to Sunni beliefs if they wished to return home.”

Last year, Indonesian Shiite leader Iklil Al Milal protested a decision to give an award to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for religious tolerance in Indonesia. “We are living as if in prison. We no longer get food rations and there has been no security guarantee from the state,” said Milal at a public forum, speaking to conditions Indonesian Shias faced after the Sampang attacks.

“Today the population of Shia’s in the country is approximately one million, they are distributed all around the country, however, they are mainly found in Jakarta-which is the capital city of Indonesia, Bandanogh and Sowra,” says Imamreza.net. The same website also claims that Shiites originally entered the country when grandchildren of Sayyid Ali al-Uraidhi, son of the Shiite Imam Jafar Sadiq, migrated to Indonesia with his family members in the 9th century CE.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/ ... oj1kkuI.99

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 27 Apr 2014 10:30

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote:Shiv,
It takes money to put out a message. It takes money to sustain organisations.
Johann you have provided a secular explanation for a religious issue and have tippy-toed around one vital aspect

Two things here
1. Message
2. Money

If the money goes the message will not go. It may just become dormant.

Now please tell me what the message is. it is just as important that everyone knows and understands the message that all this money is spreading and what message it is that can lead to bestial killing provided the money is there.

Would you be able to say something about the message that is being spread with money. What is the message? What are the origins of the message? Will the message disappear or merely hide if there is no money. Would the message restart murder once money becomes available. is there any chance that the message will lead to more war and more killing of people? Can anything be done about the message? If so, what can be done?

'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' is the famous quote. But I think its not true. Its not the power that corrupts. Power only enhances the ability to carry out the intentions. Money, power, technology, tools, skills, ...etc increase the abilities. How those abilities will be used are determined by two factors:
a) needs - circumstances
b) intentions - nature of the person using it.

Intentions/nature of a person are determined by the company(Sangam) he keeps. If he keeps good company(Sath Sangam), then he is likely to become a person with good intentions. If he keeps bad company, then he likely to become a person with bad intentions.

How to define 'good' and 'bad'?
Bhagavadh Geetha gives a very simple but powerful definition of Sath i.e. good. 'Sath' or 'good' are those who think of others as similar to themselves. Bhagavadh Geetha is only repeating the classical Hindhu belief that Secret to Dharmic life is:
atmavat sarva-bhutesu yah pasyati sa panditah
One who sees all beings as similar to oneself is a pandita.
i.e. A pandita(the exact translation is 'a person who is ripe with knowledge') thinks in following manner: "all beings are like me. Just as I crave for pleasure and avoid pain, similarly other beings crave for pleasure and avoid pain. Just as I want good things to happen to me, others also want good things to happen to them. I like to be respected and appreciated, others want the same. I don't like to be insulted or harassed, others have similar feelings. So, don't do to others what you don't want others(all beings) to do to you and do to others(all beings) as you would have them do to you."

This outlook forms the basis of Dharmic i.e. good conduct. When you put yourself in others' shoes and feel for them, you are bound not to harm them. Because no one harms self.

Dharma or 'good conduct' has been summarized by Vyasa thus:
Paropakaraya Punyaya, Papaya Para Peedanam.
'Helping others is punya(merit/Dharma) and harming others is papa(sin/Adharma)'

This in short is the definition of 'good' and 'bad': If one helps others, then one is 'good'. If one harms others, one is 'bad'.

If one helps others without expecting anything in return, then one is really good.
If one helps others expecting something in return(including conversions), then it is a sort of a business transaction.
If one harms others in self-defence, then its not wrong. *
If one harms others as part of duty to punish the wrong doing, then its not wrong. #
If one harms others generally, then one is bad.

*When is harming in self-defence justified?
Bhagavadh Geetha lists people who can be harmed/punished. Such people are called Athathayinas i.e. 'terrorists' or 'miscreants'. Athathayinas are those people
a) who steal land/property and/or
b) who steal/rape women(human trafficking), and/or
c) who cause fire accidents and/or
d) who try to kill people.
These 4 crimes deserve death sentence according to Bhagavadh Geetha. In general, tit for tat behaviour is not considered wrong. If the other person is trying to harm 'you', then 'you' are allowed tit for tat according to this definition of 'good' or 'bad'.

#When is harming as part of duty justified?
People who have the responsibility to save the populace have the duty of punishing those who do crimes against populace. The 4 major crimes have been described above. There are other moral crimes and many minor crimes. Anyone who performs these crimes have to be punished by the Govt. The authority figure that implements the punishment is not 'bad' as long as the authority figure implements the justice without any favor or bias. Similarly, a soldier killing an enemy soldier in battle is not at wrong. However, one needs to be careful here because many groups form into militias and start killing people by claiming to be soldiers. So, its important to understand that a soldier can kill enemy soldier only on battlefield. Killing citizens by the soldier is not correct. If a soldier kills citizens, then he becomes a terrorist. Soldiers cannot harm citizens. Soldiers can only harm enemy soldiers and that too only on battlefield. These definitions of 'good' and 'bad' help people in making proper judgements.

Blaming tools, money, power, skills, technology, ...etc is like trying to cure the symptoms instead of treating disease. If the intentions of a person/group are good, then money, power, tools, skills, tech, ...etc will increase their ability to do good. If the intentions of a person/group are bad, then money, power, tools, skills, tech, ...etc will increase their ability to do bad.

What are good ideologies, average ideologies and bad ideologies?
Good ideologies are those that preach that all creatures are similar or same same. If all are similar, then they are less likely to hate each other.
Average ideologies are those that are ambivalent on the issue. But, average ideologies have lots of intellectual and artistic components to keep its adherents occupied in some non-destructive activity.
Bad ideologies are those that preach 'us' are different from 'them'. 'us vs them' theme leads to hatred.
Worst ideologies are those that preach 'us' are different from 'them' And also lack any intellectual/artistic components. So, its adherents are wholly occupied in 'us vs them' theme which leads to hatred and eventual violence.

johneeG wrote:So, what can the preacher do?
Well, preacher turns to the only other topic that never fails to engage people: 'us vs them'.

There are several variations of 'us vs them' theme that preachers of different ideologies can indulge in. Eg: men vs women, boys vs men, infants vs old men, animals vs humans, liberal vs conservative, traditional vs modern, faithful vs unfaithful, ...etc.

Regardless of that particular variation, the larger them is always 'us vs them'. Obviously, in such a theme, the 'other' is dissed and cussed. This is why 'hate' gets propagated. Basically, this means that even if the present 'enemy' or 'other' is removed, the preacher/ideology will find some other 'enemy' or 'other' to stay relevant. The preacher or ideology needs the 'other' because they depend on 'us vs them' theme to stay relevant to their audience.

That means any ideology that wants to avoid ending up in such negative 'us vs them' theme should develop intellectual/philosophical or artistic/creative components within their ideology.

Link to post

Sunni vs Shia is just one variation of 'us vs them' theme. It could easily be muhajirs vs pakjabis or bengalis vs pakjabis or ...etc. It is not even limited to only malsI. Even if all Shias succeed in eliminating Sunnis or Sunnis succeed in eliminating the shias, the essential situation is not going to change much.

So, to avoid hatred and then consequent violence, ideologies have to come to the agreement that all creatures are essentially same same or similar.
If that is not possible, then the ideologies will have to develop intellectual/creative pursuits to keep the people occupied in some other activities.

johneeG wrote:Creative pursuits would mean arts like music, dance, acting, poetry, writing, acting, even fighting(or martial arts), games...etc. These activities also have lot of scope for exploration that a preacher can use to preach to his audience without boring them.

Both creative and intellectual pursuits have a common thing: In these activities, a person is competing with self. It is a sort of self-improvement mechanism. In a way, the activity becomes just a tool or method to improve oneself.

One finds that Bhaarathiya religions have a huge amount of philosophy and arts department. This allows the practitioners and preachers to engage themselves in lots of activity that involves philosophy or arts without boring themselves. Getting bored seems to be the biggest worry in the world. Mind craves some activity...any activity. An empty mind is a devil's workshop. If the mind is not constructively engaged, it will turn to destructive activities/thoughts. The same applies to ideologies.

Ideologies that lack philosophy and arts component provide a challenge to the preacher to come up with something engaging to his audience. This is a very difficult job. Almost any topic becomes stale after it is repeated sometimes. But a preacher has to live all his life preaching something or the other! If there are no preachers, then the ideology will die.

johneeG wrote:But, there is a negative in this aspect for the preacher or the ideology:
If the people start seriously practicing intellectual/philosophical or artistic/creative components, then they are less likely to listen the regular preaches of the preacher. As I said, people are likely to look at their own intellectual/artistic pursuits as a self-improvement mechanism. So, they will give greater importance to it and the importance of the preacher(or even the ideology) gets reduced. Why would a preacher/ideology want to encourage a component that is likely to reduce his/her own power?

Another danger for the preacher or ideology from intellectual/artistic pursuits is that those pursuits can be decoupled from the ideology and pursued independently by the people. If people start following intellectual/artistic pursuits after decoupling it from the ideology, the ideology becomes completely sidelined and faced extinction.

But, generally, the reason these intellectual/artistic components are not developed by all ideologies is because it is not easy to develop them. It requires a certain amount of talent, dedication, skill, technology, money, free-time, ...etc. And its not possible for a single person to do that suddenly. Its built over time gradually or passed down from previous generations. For both such activities to occur, there needs to be a relative peace or stability. If there is a lot of instability in the society, then it is unlikely for such components to develop.

People who practice intellectual/artistic pursuits would need patrons. That means some people would need to be ready to give money to these people. That means there needs to be respect for intellectuals or artists. Only in an environment where the intellectuals/artists are respected, can the intellectual/artistic pursuits possible.

Link to post

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Apr 2014 20:58

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote:Shiv,
It takes money to put out a message. It takes money to sustain organisations.
Johann you have provided a secular explanation for a religious issue and have tippy-toed around one vital aspect

Two things here
1. Message
2. Money

If the money goes the message will not go. It may just become dormant.

Now please tell me what the message is. it is just as important that everyone knows and understands the message that all this money is spreading and what message it is that can lead to bestial killing provided the money is there.

Would you be able to say something about the message that is being spread with money. What is the message? What are the origins of the message? Will the message disappear or merely hide if there is no money. Would the message restart murder once money becomes available. is there any chance that the message will lead to more war and more killing of people? Can anything be done about the message? If so, what can be done?

Shiv,

There's a long history of Sunni-Shia violence in the Subcontinent - before Partition changed Lucknow's demography there was regular sectarian violence around moharram. I have vague memories of a time much later when I was told not to go out on the street in India during moharram because 'there might be trouble.'

But the difference with the kind of violence seen in Pakistan and worldwide post 1979 is that it is highly politicised violence.

Groups like the SSP and its predecessor the Malis-e-Ahrar (which was mostly anti-Muslim League before Partition) have a very basic political goal - to establish themselves as the champions of the lower middle class and working class Muslim majority, and they do that by finding and attacking 'enemies' of the majority, preferably those who have historically benefited from the status quo.

I guarantee if its not the Shia, they will find someone else - perhaps Christians, and the elites who have voiced opposition to the blasphemy law, or banks offering interest, or restaurants that serve alcohol on the side, or polio workers. They'll find a cause and a target that allows them to pursue class war and power for themselves with all the self righteousness that a combination of religion and nationalism affords them.

As long as official Pakistani ideology tells the majority 'you're special because you're a practicing Muslim' but actually treats them like rubbish, then this sort of religious nationalist ideology is going to be the one of the only ways that majority can attack the system. Which goes back to what I was saying on the other thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2014 07:27

http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/early-wa ... -pakistan/
Early Warning Signs of Shia Genocide in Pakistan

Last month the world commemorated the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide. Dignitaries from around the world delivered speeches to mark the occasion, but UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s statement was perhaps the most remarkable, as he admitted that the United Nations was “ashamed” of its failure to prevent the mass killing. At the same time Ban was making this statement, a Shia doctor was gunned down in Karachi, Pakistan by sectarian terrorists, as part of a self-avowed campaign to “make Pakistan a graveyard” for all Shias.

Despite the escalation of targeted killings of Shia leaders and large-scale bombings of Shia neighborhoods, the Pakistani government and international community have failed to apply the lessons from cases like Rwanda in recognizing the early warning signs of an impending genocide perpetrated by sectarian terrorist groups. While the murder rates of Shias in Pakistan is nowhere close to the 800,000 Tutsis killed in Rwanda, members of the international community are duty-bound to prevent mass killing events before they occur.

The Shia’s plight must be understood in the context of Pakistan’s position within the larger sectarian struggle between Sunnis, largely supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and Shias, supported by Iran and its close allies. Pakistan walks a tightrope in this conflict as it shares a border with Iran, but relies on Saudi Arabia for aid and political patronage. This international tension has domestic implications with 20 percent of Pakistan’s population belonging to the Shia faith, amounting to nearly 25 million people who are being threatened with extermination by sectarian outfits.

To understand the threat that Pakistan’s Shias face, one must look to the Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide, to which Pakistan is a signatory. Under the Convention, a genocide occurs when a party has the intent to destroy a religious, ethnic, or racial group “in whole, or in part” and acts on that intent by killing, injuring, or deliberately causing conditions leading to the physical destruction of that group.

The Convention applies to all people, including private groups that are perpetrating genocidal acts in a country without direct assistance from the state. Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), all countries are obliged to recognize if such acts are taking place and take steps to punish past transgressions while preventing future acts.

In the context of Pakistan, the two elements to prove genocide are clearly satisfied: terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) have openly committed brutal murders of Shias with the self-avowed purpose of “cleansing Pakistan” of their presence. The attacks against Shias have basically taken three forms. First, high profile community members like doctors, lawyers and judges have been targeted in drive-by shootings in Karachi. Second, Shia religious processions and pilgrims have repeatedly been targeted in mass-shooting attacks. Third, Hazara Shias have been attacked en-masse in the city of Quetta, with several car bombings that have left hundreds dead in the last three years.

This has led to a mass exodus of Hazaras from Balochistan, with as many as 30,000 leaving the province over the last five years, according to some estimates. Many have left because they believe the government refuses to acknowledge the concerted campaign against them, and is therefore not taking steps to protect them.

Sectarian groups like Laskar-i-Islam (LI) and LeJ use various methods to terrorize Shias and force them to leave their homes, including the distributing threatening pamphlets, as occurred in Peshawar on April 16, 2014. Further, these groups often accept responsibility for vicious attacks on Shias, and express their genocidal intent in promising future attacks. This was certainly the case when the “Principal of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi” issued an open letter declaring that all Shias were “wajib-ul-katl” or “worthy of killing” in the aftermath of an attack that left eight Hazaras dead.

Despite these openly violent assertions, the government of Pakistan continues to deny the existence of genocide against Shias. As such, there are no official statistics on the number of victims, which would be a key component in understanding the level and frequency of violence perpetrated by sectarian militants. It is difficult to assess the level of political or military support these sectarian groups enjoy; however, there are a few issues that have raised concern in the past.

First, the Pakistani judiciary has been woefully ineffective at punishing acts of terrorism, especially when the victims were religious minorities. One need only look to the case of Malik Ishaq, a co-founder and leader LeJ, who has been arrested and released from jail several times, despite being implicated in the murder of hundreds of Shias. Sectarian groups often target judges and prosecutors in order to intimidate the court and its officers.

Second, many blame Islamist dictator General Zia Ul-Haq for creating these sectarian militant groups to use as proxies in Kashmir and Afghanistan in the 1980s. The groups have long since turned their violence inward toward Pakistan’s religious and ethnic minorities. Many fear the pattern from the 1980s may now be repeating itself as Syria witnesses an influx of Pakistanis entering the country to fight alongside anti-Shia militant groups opposing the Bashar al-Assad government. This could wreak havoc on Pakistan when these battle-hardened operatives return home and turn their guns on the nation’s minorities, especially Shias.

Additionally, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a Zia protégé, has been accused of being soft on these groups while leading his socially-conservative political party, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN). This claim was given credence by the fact that the PMLN was distributing a monthly stipend to Malik Ishaq’s family while Ishaq was in jail for one of his forty-four different criminal charges relating to 70 murders, many of them Shias.

Further, some also believe that anti-Shia rhetoric is seeping into the mainstream of politics. For example, Maulana Ludhanvi, the leader of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) recently won a national assembly seat. In campaigning for the seat, Ludhanvi promised, “At the moment I can raise a voice for my anti-Shia mission only at a local level and from my local mosque. But when I get the microphone in the [National] Assembly, the whole nation and the whole world will listen…”

All of these examples are consistent with the early warning signs of genocide identified by international legal scholars like Barbara Harff, who created an analytical rubric that examines “trigger events” for genocide, such as assassinations of community leaders, impunity for genocidal actors, or political instability. Accordingly, in her annual Global Watch List, Harff has repeatedly identified Pakistan as a high-risk country for mass killings targeting religious minorities, including the Shia community.

Even though the administration has not openly acknowledged the potential for genocide against Shias, there are indications that the government, or parts of it, is taking note of the growing problem. For example, the Ministry of Interior recently admitted to the Senate that more than 2,000 Shias have been killed in sectarian attacks over the last five years. Similarly, Punjab provincial police have recently begun targeting “sectarian outfits,” which has already resulted in the arrest of suspects believed to be involved in eighteen attacks that left 16 Shias dead. Furthermore, the government is in the process of passing anti-terror legislation like the Pakistan Protection Ordinance and the Fair Trial Act, which could be used to effectively prosecute sectarian militants in the future.

Pakistan and the international community at large have a responsibility to protect populations vulnerable to genocidal acts, and the first step towards this protection is realizing the scope of the problem. If the government of Pakistan were to recognize that anti-Shia attacks are early warnings of a campaign that has the potential to endanger the lives of more than 20 million Shia citizens, it could begin collecting official statistics on Shia murder rates. It could also use already existing legislation criminalizing hate-crimes to prosecute members of these groups. In addition, the government could utilize the powers that were recently granted to it under the anti-terror laws to tackle the sectarian violence.

At the same time, the international community could assist with resources and scholarly advice while applying diplomatic pressure to force Pakistan’s government to more vigilantly punish and prevent anti-Shia campaigns by terror groups. If the UN is truly “ashamed” of its failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, it must use early warning signs and diplomatic pressure to abide by the mantra of genocide prevention: “Never again.”

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2014 07:30

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/25 ... -pakistan/

Latest official figures show extremist groups have killed more than 2,000 Shia Muslims in recent years across different regions of Pakistan, Press TV reports.

According to Pakistan's Interior Ministry, at least 2,090 people, most of them Shia Muslims, were killed by terrorists over the past five years.

The figure was revealed on Friday in a written reply from the ministry to a question by lawmakers in Pakistan’s Senate, the upper house of parliament.

However, lawmakers from different political parties have contested the statistic, saying the number of victims could be much higher than reported.

Several Pakistani lawmakers also strongly condemned the ongoing massacres of Shia Muslims in Quetta, Parachinar, Karachi and Gilgit-Baltistan.

Meanwhile, at least four people were killed when a roadside bomb targeting a bus carrying Shia Muslim worshippers exploded in the southern port city of Karachi.

Pro-Taliban groups have launched a violent campaign against Shia Muslims and appear to have widened their terror campaign in major Pakistani cities.

According to local sources, militants affiliated to Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist groups have killed thousands of Shia Muslims in the country.

The killing of Shias in Pakistan has sparked international outrage, with rights groups and regional countries expressing concern over the ongoing carnage. Still, those behind the violence are rarely caught or punished.

Shia Muslims in Pakistan say the government must take decisive action against the forces involved in the targeted killings. They also accuse Islamabad of failing to provide security for the Muslim community.

In Pakistan, Shia organizations along with members of the civil society have staged several protests to denounce the targeted killing of innocent Shias across the violence-wracked country.

Pakistan has been experiencing violence since 2001, when Islamabad joined the so-called US war on terror. Pakistani sources say nearly 50,000 people have lost their lives in the violence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2014 07:35

Before Iraq polls, Shiite militias unleashed war on Sunni insurgents

The Sunni militants who seized the riverside town of Buhriz late last month stayed for several hours.

The next morning, after the Sunnis had left, Iraqi security forces and dozens of Shiite militia fighters arrived and marched from home to home in search of insurgents and sympathizers in the rural community, dotted by date palms and orange groves.

According to accounts by Shiite tribal leaders, two eyewitnesses and politicians, what happened next was brutal.

“There were men in civilian clothes on motorcycles shouting ‘Ali is on your side,’ ” one man said, referring to a key figure in Shiite tradition. “People started fleeing their homes, leaving behind the elders and young men and those who refused to leave. The militias then stormed the houses. They pulled out the young men and summarily executed them.”

The killings turned the town 35 miles (about 56 km) northeast of Baghdad into a frontline in Iraq’s gathering sectarian war.

In Buhriz and other villages and towns encircling the capital, a pitched battle is under way between the emboldened Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the extremist Sunni group that has led a brutal insurgency around Baghdad for more than a year, and Iraqi security forces, who in recent months have employed Shiite militias as shock troops.

On the eve of national elections on Wednesday, Iraq is fast returning to the horrors of its recent past. Security officials, tribal figures and politicians fear ISIS might choke off the capital as an earlier incarnation of the group did in the years following the invasion by U.S. forces. Then, Sunni extremists set off multiple car bombs around Baghdad on an almost daily basis, and killed Shiites with impunity.

The vote this month and the race to form a new government will be contentious, with multiple Shiite lists vying for the premiership — Sunnis and Kurds looking for plum posts — and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki determined to stay in office.

Moderation is a rare commodity. Some of Iraq’s Sunni politicians have denied ISIS’s existence in Anbar and blamed all troubles on al-Maliki, even if it means ISIS continues to grow.

In turn, militia groups have joined the Iraqi military’s combat missions against the insurgents, and sent fighters to battle Sunni rebels in Syria.

Defense of Baghdad

Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, two groups once suppressed by the American military and sponsored by the Iranians, make up the bulk of the Shiite militia fighters aiding the Iraqi security forces. According to three senior Shiite politicians, individual Asaib and Kataib members and others now defend Baghdad as part of an organization, attached to the prime minister’s military office, called the Sons of Iraq, a name formerly associated with Sunnis who battled al-Qaida.

Al-Maliki briefed senior Shiite politicians about the new paramilitary group in a meeting about the war with ISIS on April 7, where he expressed frustration about the military’s performance fighting in cities and towns, according to two people who attended the session.

Al-Maliki told senior Shiite political figures that they had formed groups “of mujahedeen and Sons of Iraq . . . on the periphery of Baghdad”; he called the fighters “better than the army” at “guerrilla warfare,” according to the meeting minutes read to reporters and confirmed by a second person who attended.

Shiite lawmaker Amir al-Kinani, a critic of al-Maliki, attended the session and said the group, which has been in existence for a year, was drawn primarily from the ranks of Asaib and Kataib.

“They have executed several operations in the belt of Baghdad and Diyala. They made qualitative operations there in Buhriz,” he said. “They are . . . jihadists ready to die.” Others aware of the initiative described it as an effort to absorb Iraq’s armed Shiite hardliners within the state.

Al-Maliki’s spokesman denied any militias are fighting for the government or belong to a new organization that reports to him. “We don’t have people who kill themselves to kill others and are considered as martyrs,” said Ali Mussawi. “There is nothing like this.”

The spokesman for police and military operations in Baghdad province also dismissed the accounts. “Such allegations are baseless and wrong, launched by those who were infuriated by the victories achieved by our security forces,” said Brig. Saad Maan.

Asaib has also publicly denied any such involvement in the fighting in Iraq. But security officers, political figures and Shiite and Sunni residents tell a different story.

One volunteer fighter, who calls himself Abbas, said he had joined the new Sons of Iraq and fought three months in Abu Ghraib. He said his battalion reported to the prime minister’s office of commander in chief. “We are all Shiites, and when people learn we are Shiites there to free them and fight against ISIS they welcomed us in,” Abbas said.

The person who introduced him said Abbas was from Asaib, but he said he was just a laborer who volunteered along with 750 mostly Shiite young men from around western Baghdad.

The men had been gathered at an airport base in western Baghdad, and were then given military fatigues, M16s and shipped to fight in a 750-strong battalion around Zaidan, west of Baghdad, and in Latifya, south of Baghdad, he said.

He and others quit when the government did not pay them after three months, but he spoke proudly of combat operations.

“When we found (the terrorists) in a house, we killed them. We burned the house or demolished it. We burned those houses because we didn’t want them to be a shelter for terrorists.”

He estimated they destroyed 25 or 26 homes.

When the killing in Buhriz ended, residents and the mayor of neighboring Baquba counted at least 23 dead. Local Shiite officials said terrorists killed any civilians. But ordinary citizens — Shiite as well Sunni — say regular people died at the hands of the militia.
Innocent people died

The lawmaker al-Kinani confirmed that innocent people died in Buhriz at the hands of Sons of Iraq Shiite paramilitary forces but called it the cost of the need to expel ISIS from the area. “Yes of course civilians died. I am not defending the killing. (But) ISIS is killing people, they are killing the (Shiites). They are killing even the Sunnis,” al-Kinani said. “When the Sons of Iraq entered the area . . . they were thinking of only killing ISIS, so there weren’t any war prisoners.”

Other Shiites are horrified by what happened, and feel confused about how to face the threat of ISIS, who they now worry will overrun them.

Al-Kinani, other politicians and tribal figures say the Shiite paramilitary forces are now assisting the army in areas around Baghdad to fight the insurgency, in part due to desertions and the decimation of some army units.

In recent days the groups have fought through a farming area called Ibrahim Bin Ali within 16 miles (25 km) of Baghdad. If the area falls, ISIS will have a foothold into Shiite parts of Baghdad.

Atrocities were filmed

Security has deteriorated fast over the last four months. In December, al-Maliki launched a campaign against ISIS in their heartland west of Baghdad. Fighting descended into a series of brutal atrocities, often caught on video and in photographs by both militants and Iraqi soldiers.

Iraqi soldiers say they have been trapped in and around the western city of Ramadi. They say they have run low on tank shells, lack aerial cover and armored vehicles, and have been hit by high casualties and desertion rates.

In March and April, ISIS seized a dam in Fallujah, flooded farmland on the outskirts of Baghdad in Abu Ghraib, and drained offshoots of the Euphrates river; the Iraqi government evacuated the main prison for Sunni detainees in Abu Ghraib because of the ongoing clashes; and militants, thought to be from ISIS, bombed the country’s oil pipeline to Turkey.

Last week, an intelligence officer who focuses on Anbar used a map to show how ISIS has free range from Anbar’s western desert down to the borders of the Shiite provinces of Hilla and Karbala and across the northern provinces of Mosul, Kirkuk and Salahuddin. In Anbar, the fighting has displaced at least 420,000 people. Ordinary citizens feel that the government has declared war on them.

Soldiers have deserted

It has been equally devastating for the military. Military personnel and Iraqi officials say several thousand soldiers have deserted; and well over 1,000, if not more, have been killed. The government has yet to release formal numbers.

Soldiers in Anbar speak with desperation. “We are dumped by our military leadership in these deserted houses in the middle of the orchards, without enough ammunition, without night binoculars,” said one soldier from Ramadi.

His battalion has 120 of its original 750 soldiers; most have deserted and he vows to do the same.

One army officer said Iraq’s Special Forces, who have led the fight against the insurgency, are now taking defensive positions to avoid more casualties.

In part, he blamed graft in Iraq’s military. “It starts from taking cuts from food allocation money, sums for repairing and maintaining Humvee and armored vehicles and finally fuel supplied for each regiment,” the officer said.

Even divisional commands are now for sale, according to a senior Baghdad general. He told the story of a peer who had been offered such a command in northern Iraq for $1 million, with the agreement he would pay the sum back in two years. When the general asked where he would raise this money, he was told he could collect protection fees from local businesses and extract a fee from trucks at highway checkpoints. He should aim to pay off $50,000 every month.

The spokesman for the Interior Ministry and Baghdad security operations, Brig. Saad Maan, dismissed the allegations as “lies and baseless accusations.”

In Salahuddin province it is ISIS that is at the center of money-raising scams.

Fake checkpoints dot the roads, with men in uniforms looking to kill anyone in the security forces.

A video released by ISIS last month showed men in police uniforms capturing a pro-government Sunni fighter. One of the ISIS members bragged: “You arrest our leaders and we pay in dollars to set them free, but when we catch you, we slaughter you.”

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jun 2014 09:13

Shia genocide continues in the Sunni republic of Pakistan
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-1 ... ises-to-30

QUETTA: The death toll in Sunday’s suicide attack in Taftan — a Pakistani town located at the Pak-Iran border — rose to 30. Of them, the bodies of 21 pilgrims were airlifted to Kohat district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa on Monday.

Officials of Chaghai administration told The News that 21 bodies of the carnage were identified as residents of Kohat district.Reports from Taftan said that over 200 pilgrims who crossed the Pak-Iran border and entered the Taftan Tehsil on Sunday evening took accommodation in two hotels, Hashmi Hotel and Murtaza Hotel, when the bombers attacked the pilgrims.

The officials said that the bodies of the deceased were removed to the morgue of a local hospital while the authorities had informed the heirs and later they were flown to their native hometowns.

Previously, the death toll was reported as 23 with many injured.Official sources from Taftan said that a case against unknown attackers was registered and further investigations are in

progress. However, the authorities are clueless about the attackers despite the passage of 24 hours of the incident.

Agencies add: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has directed the relevant authorities to take action against perpetrators of the pilgrims attack returning from Iran in Taftan. He directed the Inspector General FC to personally lead the operation against terrorists. The prime minister termed the task a big challenge for the law enforcing agencies in Balochistan.

Balochistan Chief Minister Dr Abdul Malik Baloch has also condemned terrorist attack terming it an inhuman act while the provincial Home Minister Mir Sarfaraz Bugti said, “foreign hand was involved in terrorism in Balochistan”.

In a statement he said Balochistan has long border with neighbouring countries and terrorists have their training camps in mountainous areas. “There are 34 camps in a neighbouring country’s mountainous areas where terrorists get training and later, carryout sabotage acts and attacks on innocent people in Balochistan,” he said.

Patron-in-Chief Pakistan People’s Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari also condemned the brutal attack on the innocent pilgrims in Taftan.In a statement on Monday, Bilawal expressed sympathies with the grieved families and said that he can feel their pain being the son of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto who was martyred by the terrorists.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) condemned the continuing genocide of Shias in Pakistan especially pilgrims in Balochistan.According to a statement, PTI’s Core Committee observed that this growth in sectarian killings is clearly a part of proxy wars being fought on Pakistani soil.

Despite these attacks the government has failed to provide security to the Shia community in general and the pilgrims in Balochistan in particular.Meanwhile, the Hazara Democratic Party, Majlis Wahdatul Muslimeen and Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqa-e-Jaferia had condemned the Taftan attack and termed it failure of the government.

Meanwhile the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman also strongly condemned the recent terrorist attack on the pilgrims in Balochistan province.“The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns terrorist actions on innocent people from any tribe and religion in Pakistan, and hopes that recurrence of such terrorists acts against the defenseless people will be prevented through the adoption of the necessary measures,” Afkham said on Monday.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jun 2014 23:11

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/world ... .html?_r=0
Sunni Militants Drive Iraqi Army Out of Mosul

BAGHDAD — Iraqi army soldiers abandoned their weapons and fled the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday, as Sunni militants freed hundreds of prisoners and seized military bases, police stations, banks, the airport and the provincial governor’s headquarters. The attacks widened the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and were among the most audacious assaults on the government since the American military withdrawal more than two years ago.The rout in Mosul, the second-largest Iraqi city after Baghdad and an important center of the country’s petroleum industry, was breathtaking in its speed and appeared to take government officials by surprise, not to mention residents of the city and surrounding Nineveh Province. A major humiliation for the government forces in Iraq’s Sunni-dominated areas, the defeat also reflected the stamina of the Sunni insurgency, which has been growing with the war in neighboring Syria.Mosul was the last major urban area of Iraq to be pacified by American troops before they left, and the violence there now threatens to broaden into the adjacent autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, which has its own armed forces, the peshmerga. Osama al-Nujaifi, speaker of Iraq’s Parliament and a brother of Nineveh’s governor, called on the authorities in the Kurdistan autonomous region to send reinforcements to fight the Sunni militants. BasNews, an independent news agency in Erbil, capital of the Kurdistan autonomous region, reported on Monday that Kurdish military forces had already been ordered to the outskirts of Mosul to protect Kurds threatened by the Sunni insurgents. Iraqis at a checkpoint near the Iraqi city of Arbil on Tuesday. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki ordered a state of emergency for the entire country. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki ordered a state of emergency for the entire country and called on friendly governments for help, without mentioning the United States specifically. His Shiite-led government has been increasingly struggling to deal with the resurrection of Sunni militancy in Iraq since the American military departure at the end of 2011 after eight years of war and occupation.In Washington the State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said in a statement that the United States was “deeply concerned about the events that have transpired in Mosul,” and that the Obama administration supported a “strong, coordinated response to push back this aggression.” The statement said the administration would provide “all appropriate assistance to the government of Iraq” but did not specify what aid might be forthcoming.
By midday on Tuesday, militants belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, one of the strongest extremist groups, were in control of much of central and southern Mosul, according to witnesses. Local officials claimed that many of the fighters were jihadists who had swept in from the porous border with Syria, who have increasingly operated with impunity in that region even as President Bashar al-Assad has reclaimed ground lost to the insurgents elsewhere in Syria.
As hundreds of families fled Mosul, the bodies of slain soldiers, police officers and civilians were seen lying in streets. “They took control of everything, and they are everywhere,” said one soldier who fled the city, and gave only his first name. Zuhair al-Aaraji, a member of Parliament from Mosul, said that government security forces fled from some places without firing a shot. “They left their weapons and their equipment and ran away,” he said. “All these weapons are under the control of the militants now.

gunjur · Post by **gunjur** » 11 Jun 2014 20:09

Guru's, After mosul, now even saddam's hometown tikrit has fallen to isis. Is it time up for european drawn borders in west asia post WW-I??

https://twitter.com/jamesdenselow/statu ... 9009070080

EDIT: It seems that ISIS is holding the staff of turkish embassy in mosul as hostages.

----------------------------
Meanwhile TIFWIW, it seems that an iranian mp has said that shia holy sites of najaf/karbala are iraninan "red lines".

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 11 Jun 2014 23:46

Any comments on commander Umar in the pic there, does he look like normal sheik from middle east. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-siege-is ... ia-1452138

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 15 Jun 2014 00:08

The ancient Muslim hatreds tearing apart the Middle East: How 1,400-year-old feud between Shia and Sunni sects flared into life with the fall of dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam... and now threatens to swallow all of Iraq

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jun 2014 21:24

ISIS crisis would be good name to the new innings.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 18 Jun 2014 03:23

40 Indians kidnapped in Iraq's Mosul, involvement of ISIS rebels suspected

Around 40 Indians working on projects near the Iraqi city of Mosul were kidnapped by suspected ISIS militants when they were being evacuated from the area ravaged by the war between the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad and Sunni jihadis.

A worried Indian government responded to the crisis by getting in touch with Iraqi authorities and by dispatching former ambassador to Iraq Suresh Reddy. Reddy, recently appointed as special envoy to Asean and known to have contacts among Iraqis, was on his way to Mosul.

National security advisor A K Doval is coordinating the rescue effort.

The 40 Indians are construction workers. There are around 46 Indian nurses in Tikrit, the hometown of late Saddam Hussein. Some 14 of the nurses want to leave while others are still willing to hang on, said sources.

However, it is recognized that bringing back the hostages is going to be a huge challenge. There is no authority whose writ runs in Mosul and adjoining areas. Also, while the preliminary estimate has it that the abductors were from ISIS, there is no confirmation, nor a clue to the specific gang which carried out the abduction.

The Sunni-Shia overtones of the clash have seen the official forces being forced on to the back foot. ISIS rebels are believed to be not more than 60km from Baghdad

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 18 Jun 2014 04:05

I was in discussion with a few Afghan friends of mine. Obviously they are Muslim. They were attributing all the rapes in UP to caste onleee. Hence caste = bad. Maybe the hint was that Hinduism is bad onlee.
I said that the rapes were nothing to do with caste, I have a caste too, people in other states have caste and they don't go raping one another every day. Then I went on the explain how caste consciousness is used by politicians in UP to divide and rule. I got a long email (which I did not read) explaining why it was caste that was the problem.

So I replied that all these fights, violence and 9-11 was because of Islam. No Islam, no fights. So Islam is the problem, so something needs to be done to eradicate this.

I was greeted with

, then

, followed with

and

.

I just went

.

And these are smart, educated, modern guys, not rustic mullah types.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2014 06:20

The lost moral of Islam’s divide

At the core of the dispute was an impassioned argument over whether the principle of succession in the nascent Muslim state should be dynastic or meritorious
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 135351.ece

The Sunni-Shia divide is increasingly engulfing Muslim societies in many parts of the world in spasms of internecine violence. The latest developments in Iraq with the Islamic State of Iraq and [Greater] Syria (ISIS) making rapid advances towards Baghdad are an ominous reflection of the deepening of sectarian animosities within contemporary Islam. The potential impact of the current turbulence will be felt far beyond West Asia and North Africa. The developments also indicate — especially in light of the marginalisation of the Muslim Brotherhood and other mainstream Islamist outfits in Egypt, Syria and to a limited extent in Tunisia — that political Islam or Islamism will now be championed with much more lethal effect by groups that profess allegiance to radical Salafism, such as the ISIS.

Islamism, defined broadly, is an ideological construct based on a political reading of Islam in both its history and textuality. It argues that the primary duty of a Muslim is to strive for the establishment of an Islamic state, without which Islam will remain a ‘house half-built.’ Salafism (or Wahhabism) is a theologically puritanical approach that argues for a literal reading of the scriptures, shunning all accretions in matters of faith and life. What is common between the two, however, is that they both operate on a binary notion of the world.

The coming together of Salafism and Islamism is nothing new as al-Qaeda perfectly represented the merger of the otherwise irreconcilable worldviews of the two radical streams. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri personified this coming together of radical Salafism and uncompromising Islamism. The former’s worldview can be traced to the atavistic theology of the 18th century Saudi theologian-activist Sheikh Mohamed bin Abdul Wahhab, while the latter inherited the nihilistic fanaticism of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood icon Syed Qutub. But it is with the outbreak of civil war in Syria that we saw the ‘coming out’ of this dangerous concoction from its hideouts in Afghanistan, Yemen and North Africa. The giant strides they are now making in Iraq are indicative of the changing contours of Islamism on the one hand and the new-found role that this brand of Islamism invented for itself against the portentous backdrop of the Sunni-Shia divide.

Origin of the divide

The origin of this divide — the principal fault line within Islam — goes back 14 centuries to the very beginning of Islam. Interestingly, there was nothing religious about it at the beginning as it was a purely political dispute over which an entire theological and jurisprudential edifice was superimposed later on in order to canonise and perpetuate it into a distinctive clerical order. At the core of the dispute was an impassioned argument over whether the principle of succession in the nascent Muslim state should be dynastic or meritorious. The majority of Muslims in the early years of the faith chose merit over dynasty and argued that the prophet’s temporal and spiritual successors should be selected on the basis of their competence, seniority, knowledge and experience. A minority disagreed and said the basis of succession should be familial rather than meritorious. They believed the temporal and spiritual leadership of Muslim society should remain confined to the descendants of the prophet forever.

They thought Ali — the younger cousin and son-in-law of the prophet — deserved the honour, as he was not only a staunch companion of the prophet but also his closest family member by virtue of birth and marriage. Shia is an abbreviation for Shia’t Ali, the party of Ali, and is built around the victimhood of the prophet’s family following his death. The Sunnis do not dispute the importance of Ali and do not disparage him in any way; they consider him one of the greatest companions of the prophet along with the others, including the three other caliphs who preceded Ali in the seat of power. In a way, the difference between Sunni and Shia approaches to Ali is comparable to the difference between Islamic and Christian approaches to Jesus Christ. While both the religions converge on the greatness of Jesus as a man of God, they diverge on questions of his divinity and deification. Just as no Muslim will ever disparage Jesus, no Sunni will ever speak ill of Ali. Like in the case of the two Semitic religions, it was the differences and not the commonalities that were given accent throughout history, resulting in an entrenched culture of de-sacralisation and demonisation of the other on both sides. The fact that the two sects chose to follow totally different references in their respective approaches to jurisprudence and theology widened the gulf further over the centuries. With the exception of the Quran, which in any case has been susceptible to multiple and often contradictory interpretations, there are no religious or historical references that the Sunnis and Shias agree on.

Point of agreement

What is most interesting in this context is that both the sects agree on the need for an Islamic political system on earth. While the Islamists on both sides argue for the primacy of an Islamic state, the others express minor disagreements on questions of prioritising an Islamic state over those of building an Islamic society. No known mainstream religious organisation among both the sects rejects the idea of an Islamic majoritarian state as a desired eventuality. There is total consensus among all that justice will flourish only in such a state where the Sharia would replace all other sources and methods of legislation. What about justice for those who belong to other faiths or no faiths is a minor detail glossed over by self-righteous rhetoric.

This brings us to one of the most exasperating paradoxes in Islamic history. While the only consensus that ever existed across the sects in Islam has been on the desirability of (an immediate or eventual) Islamic state governed according to the Sharia, the principal divide of all times in Muslim society happened because there was no clear concept of a state or political system in Islam. It goes without saying that the method of electing the ruler is the most basic part of any political system, the absence of clarity on which triggered the first and foremost split among the Muslims. The festering wounds of that split continue to bleed the community to this day.

The Quran and the Prophet’s rich traditions left the choice of political systems or the nature of the state to the wisdom of the people and their circumstances. The followers, however, persisted with their delusional search for a theocratic utopia, denuding a faith of its humane core in the process. The Quran stressed on persuasion in matters of faith while the Islamists saw coercion (with the state being its ultimate and most legitimate instrument) as the only method for preservation of the faith. Iran will do all it can to stop the ISIS warriors in their tracks. ISIS will be happy to eradicate the Islamic Republic of Iran. But both will marshal the same set of arguments for the establishment and perpetuation of an Islamic state as well as for the disempowerment of each other in their respective spheres of influence.

In Iraq, for instance, Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and his cohorts will be perfectly happy to replicate the Iranian Vilayat-e-Faqih model of state in Iraq and disenfranchise the Sunni minority. The ISIS will be delighted to establish their model of Islamic state and disenfranchise the Shia majority. Both parties will advance the same arguments to justify and Islamise their brutalities. Creation of a hell here in the name of the hereafter is the fundamental objective of all varieties of Islamism, despite their invocation of justice and divine will in every other sentence they write or speak.

(Shajahan Madampat is a cultural critic and commentator.)

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2014 16:24

The above op-ed posted by Shiv from The Hindu is an excellent one. Some of the comments are enlightening too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jun 2014 16:59

Today's TV news says 5000 Shias from India want to go and fight ISIS in Iraq.

Someone was saying that we probably have 20 million Shias in India.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Jun 2014 17:07

SS, where are you seeing the comments... I can't see any.