Sunday, 26 August 2007

The Iraqi Shi'a under the Spotlight of Suspicion



Equating Arabism with “Sunnism” was the crucial principle that formulated the relation of successive Iraqi states with different Iraqi communities, mainly the Shia’h and the Kurds. Successive Iraqi governments, almost always run by Sunni Arabs, regarded Shi’sm as a schism encouraged and supported by discontented anti-Arab (Shu’ubi) Persians. Satti’h Al-Hassri, Imzahim Al-Pachachi, Abdul Aziz Al-Douri, Khairullah Tilfah and Saddam Hussein were examples of prominent figures that questioned the Iraqi Shia’h identity and loyalty. And recently, Arab leaders shared the same views e.g. King Abdullah of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt. The last responses from Iraq came indirectly from Adnan Addulaimi, the head of the General Council for the People of Iraq, “Mu’tamar Ahlul Iraq”, in a letter addressed to the Arab world urging them to stand up and help their “Arab Sunni Brothers” in Iraq against an Iranian (Safawi, Persian) agenda aiming to get rid of all “Arab Sunnis” in Baghdad.
All the above figures believe that Iraqi Shia’h owes basic loyalty to Iran. I’ve always tried to get to the bottom of these accusations and the only conclusions I’ve reached so far were:

1. Since the evolution of Shi’sm as a distinct sect in Islam during the 7th and 8th centuries, the Shih’a of Iraq in particular was accused of being collaborators with non-Arab outsiders like the Mongols, Safavid Iran and recently the Americans.
2. The allegations of loyalty to Iran were the most important for the last five centuries i.e. since Iran (or Persia) became a Shia’h state. In addition, these allegations try to portray the Iraqi Shia’h as passively controlled by Iranians irrespective of the nature of the Iranian regime, a Qajar monarchical pro-West regime or fundamentalist Islamic Republic.
3. There is an attempt to paint a picture of “inferiority complex” among Iraqi Shih’a towards Iran, the culture, the Shi’sm, the history and finally the state itself.
4. And the last misconception is to believe that all Iraqi Shih’a, whether of Arabic or non-Arabic (Fayli Kurds or Turkumans) origins, religious Najaf i turbaned mullah or secular educated Baghdadi communist, are all non-Arabs (Ajam) and highly suspicious. For me, the idea of presence of one homogenous mass named the “Shih’a of Iraq” is purely non-sense.

The above mentioned points open the door to many other unanswered questions: if the Shih’a of Iraq were labelled throughout history as none-Iraqis, Safawi’s or “Ajam” and owe loyalty to Iran, why the Iraqi Sunnis were not considered as Ottomans or accused of being loyal to Ottoman empire interests. Urban Iraqi Sunnis formed the backbone of the civil service and military force in Iraq for approximately four centuries. Moreover, they used Turkish rather than Arabic as their official language. The second question that buzzes in my head is: if the current Iraqi government has close ties with Iran, why we should consider the whole Shih’a community in Iraq as pro-Iranian. The Syrian government repeatedly admitted that they have close political, financial and military links to Iran but nobody dared to accuse them of being “Safawi’s” or “Ajam”. During Iran-Iraq war, Syria openly stood by Iran and helped the Iranians against Iraq but Adnan Addulaimi did not accuse them of disloyalty or questioned their Arabic identity.


Coming back to Addulaimi letter, The General Council for the People of Iraq is one of the main constituents of the Iraqi Accord Front, the major representative of the Iraqi Arab Sunnis which has 44 seats in the Iraqi Parliament. These accusations came amid an escalating political crisis in Iraq with the withdrawal of all ministers from the Iraqi Accord Front, The Iraqi List (Ayad Allawi) and the Sadrists from Al-Maliki’s government which is currently on the brink of collapse.
First of all, the style of language used to write this letter is a sort of regression to a bygone era, to the age of Islamic expansion during the Khilafa days or under the rule of Umayyad or Abbasid dynasties approximately ten centuries ago. So it will immediately take your mind to a period where conflicts and wars were the only options to deal with unresolved issues and threats. It is an open invitation for a confrontational war between the “Sunni Arab” world with “Safawi Iran” and as usual the battle ground is Iraq, the land of Mesopotamia. In such a nightmarish scenario, there is no place for pure Iraqi identity and voice. On the contrary, the only path that Iraqis should follow is to ally themselves with each side of the conflict along sectarian lines. Another important point in that letter was the terminology used to describe Iranians (Safawis, Persians and Zoroastrians). It is quite clear that he is referring not only to the Iranian regime but to Iran the people as well. This will shift the conflict from pure politically-motivated one for the sake of regional domination to a clash of ideologies between the two nations. Like the Iran-Iraq war, when it was portrayed as war of identity, history, ideology and culture but the reality was far from that. It was a confrontation between two rogue authoritarian regimes trying to impose their agendas on the region. The other impression that the letter gives is that “Arab Sunnis” are the sole victims of assassinations, deportation and mass killings in today’s Iraq, excluding the Shih’a and other Iraqi communities from such miseries. He also intentionally avoided mentioning the Americans and their role in this conflict as the major power that holds the keys for any political or military change in the future of Iraq.
Finally I would like to emphasize that accusing the Iraqi Shih’a of disloyalty to their country and to question their identity; this will deprive our right to keep Iraq as a unified country. With nearly 50% Shih’a population in Iraq labelled as “Ajam” and pro-Iranian and 25% Kurds and other minority groups loyal to their own nationalities and ethnic origin, we should stop being proud of belonging to a common Iraqi identity.


To read Addulaimi’s letter, click on the link below:
http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/Politics/2007/8/255239.htm

33 comments:

Iraqi Mojo said...

Excellent post! I am still bewildered when I hear or read an Arab claiming that the Iraqi Shia are agents of Iran.

"Iraqi Sunnis' attitudes were from the outset shaped by their belief that they would able to get back on top. Many Sunnis clung to the illusion that the Shias' majority status within the country was a myth spread by America. One Sunni talking point, repeated by no less a figure than Jordan's King Abdullah as well as then Defense Minister Shaalan, was that Iranians were crossing the border into Iraq in order to inflate Shia numbers. The insinuation was that many, if not most, Shias were not actually Iraqi at all - that Iraq was being turned into a Shia state by force and fraud." -Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

Iraqi Mojo said...

When in 971 C.E. Roman forces attacked the Abbasid domain, the first response of the caliph’s forces and the angry and terrified Sunnis was to blame the Shia. -Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

Ramshakle1 said...

Sheko Makoo:
I don´t really see any good in digging in history trying to (although twistingly) answer a simple and already answered question.
Read This (copy and paste).

http://darbouna.blogspot.com/

I´m sorry ,but the Shiit institution (and all who support it or still believe in it )proved to be a total failure.They´ve been given the historical chance to build a state but they just blew it away.
Shiit institution= The dogma (Al Mahdi theory snd the Mathlomia claim)+The Ulamats/Sayyids who take shield in it and get rich and powerful by it+The common Shiit who still respects the current shiit figures and believes in salvation impersonified by Al Mahdi(my mother,brother and neighbours among those ) +The Safawi Iraqis+The Irani government.
Don´t look over the hill and far beyond to seek the truth: It´s right under your nose.

Good Day !

Sheko Mako said...

Hi Ramshackle,

we are going back to square one. the Shia religious institution, the beliefs and the traditions are different from the main topic of the post which is LOYALTY TO IRAN. and the reference that all Iraqi Shia'a are loyal to Iran.

Regards

Sheko Mako said...

Dear Ramshackle
ومن جهته حذر عدنان الدليمي رئيس جبهة التوافق والامين العام لمؤتمر أهل العراق في نداء شديد اللهجة مما قال انه مخطط ايراني بدعم ميليشيات مسلحة لإفراغ مدينة بغداد من اهل السنة. وقال الدليمي وهو عضو في مجلس النواب في نداء وجهه الى العرب ان العراقيين وخاصة في بغداد يتعرضون لحملة ابادة منقطعة النظير تقوم بها الميليشيات وفرق الموت بتوجيه وتخطيط ودعم واسناد وسلاح ايراني. “

could you please see the reference that the Arab Sunnis are the only Iraqis?

3eeraqimedic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A&Eiraqi said...

Shako Mako
Let's take things gradually.
Of course no one has the right to say Shi'its are Iranins or agents for Iran and no one should agree with that as it's not true, yet, the matter is a bit more complicated.
There are many tings which no one could clarify.

Inside (Hawza)many people including grant Ayyatullahs speak persion rather than Arabic!!!

Shi'ite Political leaders kept talking about secteriansim before anyone else and kept trying to deny the Arabic background of Iraq since the first day after the invasion.
I can remind you how Mohamed Bahr el-3uloom jumped in the first confress for the ruling council saying(let Arabs leave us alone); moreover they kept accusing Arabs(Syria, Sudia Arabia and many other Arabic countries) of ebing the cause to destabilise Iraq, and never accused Iran!!

Ahmedi Najad said his country is ready to fill the gap in Iraq! Where is the reply of Sistani or Maliki.


Arab sunnis are not the only Iraqis but it's shameful to put the leaders of the Iraqi army who fought Iran for 8 years in the cage accusing them of being massive killers as they were fighting against their enemies while the ones in power now(Hakim and Talbani) used to fight with Iran against Iraq; not against Saddam.
Do I need to remind you of what happend to our prisoners in Iran? Why haven't I heard any political leader mentioning them.

Why don't I hear any leader condem what happen in Abu Ghraib and promise to provide financial support to those who were tortured or raped?


If you don't know; inside the house of Al-Jafari there is a big picture for the criminal Khumaini, isn't this considered as loyality?

It's quite sectarian if someone sunni insults Sistani but it should be acceptable that the Iraqi goverment insulting all the sunni turbans and keep arresting them!!

I'm not here critcizing Shi'its or defending Sunnis; I disagree with Dulaimi, Dhari and I disagree with insurgents but we should never link Shi'its to the corrupted Maliki goverment which is ruled by gang of traitors.

It's not about shi'ites and sunnis as much as it's about those who were appointed to be leaders.
Shi'its are not Iranians but Sistani is Iranian so as many others.

ramshakle1 said...

I agree totally and unconditionally with what a&eiraqi said.
My claim is still the same:
It´s no historical coincidence that the Shiits never gained power and ruled a state ( one or two exception in Islamic history and ,ofcourse,Khomeini´s Iran).They just can not and should not be left to. Shiits ,in the essence and core of their dogma ,lack the political skills and vision to be leaders.I always thought that Imam Ali surely was Allah´s favourate man.But I also believe that If I was a citizen in a democratic state where and when Ali and Maáwia were colliding ,I would unhesisatingly have voted for Maawia.Maáwia was a better politician.A REAL man of state ,morals and ethics aside !`
But let´s stop talking history and talk about now and here:
Sheko Mako´s main topic in this post was to discredit the claim the Iraqi shiits are loyal to Iran and that Iraqi shiits do not have inferiority complex toward the Iranians.I believe in the opposite.
2 days ago I phoned an Iraqi person I know living in the same country I live in.On the other end of the line I heard voices of people singing and chanting in what sounded like a group fest.I asked him what was going on,he said : We are celebrating the birthday of Sahib AL Zeman .I said Sahib who? He bewilderdly repeated: Sahib Al Zeman !!
I don´t understand !
Why Iraqi shiits gather in a european country to celebrate a myth while on the same day and for the sake of the same myth 10s of Iraqi people were killed in Kerbala ?
Isn´t it more logical to mourn the death of the innocents who once existed in life rather than to celebrate the birth of someone who has always been and will always be absent ( AL Mahdi ) ?
Don´t Iraqi shiits know that the mere practice of Shiit faith (regardless of my opinion of how near or far it is to the real Isalm) will serve only by giving the Sayyids (Al Sadr,Al Hakeem;AL Sistani..etc) more power and legitimacy to control them, the herd?
Since and AL Hakeem and Al Maliki and AL Sadr and Al Sistani are loyal to Iran and working on it´s behalf (no discussion aout that) then anyone who practices a faith that will lead to strengthen the names above is by defintion a Safawi Shiit (A shiit whose loyality is doubted ) .If the Iraqi shiits want to prove their loyality to Iraq and show their Iraqiness then they should stop worshipping names and shrines that mean nothing and start loving their country.
Harsh judgment? nnrational? radical demand you think?
Say what you want (there is ofcource a social theory that says that societies by nature clench to the symbols of religeon in times of crises to feel safe.) ... My theory is different :In a critical time like this one when Iraq is about to be wiped out off the map ,in a time like this it´s only ultimate,exceptional and radical rules that can be applied to save the country!

Say No To Doctrine ,Wahabi and Shiit ! Love your Country and NOT Al Mahdi !

Good day !

Iraqi Mojo said...

"A REAL man of state ,morals and ethics aside !"

LOL! Thanks for being honest! No fucking wonder there are so many tyrants in the Arab world.

'Sunni Muslims accepted Muawiya's rise. He lacked religious authority, but he guaranteed the basic order that the faith was thought to need. Under the Umayyads the caliphs became both pope and caesar, delegating authority over religious matters to professional religious scholars and functionaries, the ulama. The Sunnis were well on their way to embracing their traditional stance of accepting a regime's legitimacy so long as it provided order, protected Islam, and left religious matters to the ulama. The famous saying "Better sixty years of tyranny than a single day of civil strife" captures the spirit of the Sunni position.' -Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival

Iraqi Mojo said...

"could you please see the reference that the Arab Sunnis are the only Iraqis?"

I have a feeling that ramshakle believes this! SHLON mu6aya 3idna bil wa6an el 3arabi!

Ramshakle1 said...

Iraqi Mojo :

(What donekies do we have in the arabic world)..That´s how your last hybrid sentence translates ?If so ,and If Iam supposed to be that donkey then it´s fair enough that you made silence easier to mr when It´s always tempting to stand for an insult.But assuming that you are a (defender) of ethics and morals as I understood from your reply on my comment ,I´d rather have you judged by the owner of this blog (sheko mako ) and the rest of his readers.
Thank you for giving me the pleasure of acting civilized !

A&Eiraqi said...

Mojo
It seems you know nothing about Arabic history apart from what you were taught blindly.

When Mu3awia got the power there were no Sunnis at that time; The followers of Immam Ali were named as (The shi'ites of Ali or the Shi'ites of Mohamd's house family) later on.
If you think that everyone accepted and supported Mu3awiya; you're quite mistaken, Umawion didn't have full control on the Arabic land till the time of Abdul-Malik bin Marwan.
There was the big revolution of Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair whose brothr was married to Sukaina the daughter of Immam Hussien.
When Immam Ali was killed; his oldest son (Immam Alhasan) sat with Mu3awia and agreed on letting him be the caliph and Immam Hassan should have been the next after him; Yet, Mu3awiya cheated and poisoned Immam Hassan, but the agrement is very well known.

Still; there were people like Ibn Omar, Osama Bin Zaid and Saad bin Abi Waqas who never accepted Mu3awiya as caliph when he was fighting Immam Ali.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"It seems you know nothing about Arabic history apart from what you were taught blindly."

All I did was quote an excerpt from an excellent book that everybody (especially Arabs) should read.


"When Mu3awia got the power there were no Sunnis at that time;"

I did not claim that there were Sunna or Shia at the time. But that's where the split started, no? Thank you for pointing out that not all Arabs accepted accepted Mu3awia as caliph - that is good to know.

Sheko Mako said...

A&E

Thank you for your comment, I completely agree with you, with Ramshackle and 3eerakimedic that the current Iraqi government is sectarian and they have close ties and links with Iran and many of them especially AbdulAziz Al-Hakim and some parts of the Da'wa party closely linked with Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ittila'at (the Iranian Central Intelligence) and this is not the right way to build Iraqi identity inclusive of all the sects.
I am not denying that the current Iraqi security apparatus and the army is heavily infiltrated by militias among their agenda is targeting Iraqi Sunnis.
But my argument is the accusations against the IRAQI SHI’A BEING NOT IRAQIS AND THEY ARE "AJAM" AND LOYAL TO IRAN. If you check the excerpt that i posted earlier in Arabic you will see what i want to emphasize. It does not refer to the Shi’a leaders but to the whole Shi’a community.

"Inside (Hawza) many people including grant Ayatollahs speak Persian rather than Arabic"

Yes that's right and not only in Shi’sm but in any Islamic sect. Islam is an extra-regional religion based on expansion. Najaf as a centre of Hawza for more than 200 years will definitely attract all religious Shi’a scholars from all over the world. Sunni's are not different. Most of the radical Sunni political groups at the moment based their ideologies on the writings of Sayyed Qutb who was greatly influenced by Abu Al-Ula Al-Mawdoodi. Al-Qaeda now recruits people from all over the world and the religious schools in Pakistan attract Sunnis from the Arab World. For the scholar being Arabic or Persian, it does not really matter, what is important is his views and ideologies. Muqtada Al-Sadr is Arabic, popular among poor Iraqi Shia’a, anti American, against Federalism, against Oil law legislation and most recently against the government; does that make him real patriotic Iraqi? NO. In reality he is nothing but a gangster with his army of thieves and murderers. Al-Sistani is Persian but the one who is going to take his position after death as the grandayatullah is Arabic; one of three, Mohamed Said Al-Hakim, Bashir al-Najafi and most likely Ishaq Al-Fayadh. They are all Arabs but will that make any difference, I doubt.

“it's shameful to put the leaders of the Iraqi army who fought Iran for 8 years in the cage accusing them of being massive killers as they were fighting against their enemies while the ones in power now(Hakim and Talbani) used to fight with Iran against Iraq; not against Saddam”

Here I have different view; I clearly outlined my views about Iran Iraq war. It was a war between two roué regimes rather than between the people of two nations. Neither the Iranian people nor the Iraqi people wanted this war, however both paid heavy price. Re. the Iraqi Army I do not think that we should be proud of our army. I know you will disagree with me. Iraqi Army since its creation in 1920 was a tool to persecute Iraqis more than being an army to defend the Iraqi country from foreign threats. It was the army that made all the coups in Iraq, it was our army that bombed and killed the Assyrians, the Kurds and the Shi’as on many occasions. It was our army that invaded Kuwait and was shamefully defeated in 1991. We all remember the pictures of the Iraqi soldier kissing the feet of American soldiers in 1991. finally it was the army that vanished in 3 weeks before the American invasion in 2003. if we want to be proud of his contribution in the Arabic wars against Israel, we lost all wars with other countries. so what is left to be proud of? We simply have nothing am afraid.

For those who fought with Iran against Iraq during the 80s and they were not fighting Saddam. I do not know how can they fight Saddam but not the Iraqi Army? Second, the Iraqi Communist Party also fought Saddam’s regime during the 80s, through his Al-Ansar groups in Kurdistan but why they were not accused of being proiranians or “Safawis”? in fact Talbani, one day, fought with Saddam against Al-Ansar and approximately 1500 of them were killed in 1983. SO IT IS ALL POWER STRUGGLE RATHER THAN CLASH BETWEEN NATIONS.

And my last point is again, why the Syrians (during the 80s) and Lebanese Hizbullah who frankly say they helped and getting help from Iran are not referred to as Iranians, Ajam or Safawis BUT ONLY IRAQI SHIA’A ARE CALLED SO?

Thank you for ur comments and regards

IRAQ MOJO,

Coud you please stop using ur offensive words.

thanks

Iraqi Mojo said...

My apologies, Sheko Mako. I suppose that only ramshakle and people like him are allowed to use offensive language, to call us 'Shiits' and to suggest that we are not fit to rule our own country.

Ramshakle1 said...

Just to clarify :
first Shiits or Shias ..the same.It´s a matter of spelling and has nothing to do with Shit=Stool.
Second I come from 100% pure (shiit) family.
Third Idon´t think anyone is aloud to offend anyone else on this blog when discussing an issue and especially not aloud when opinions collide.
Fourth: tips for Sheko Mako that as an owner to your own flourishing blog (which I have always supported) you can set a list of rules of how your guests should behave and how the general approach of discussion should be .Many bloggers do that.After all you are the owner of the house and the rest of us are only guests who should behave well especially when we do not agree with each other.
Sixth: we are not here to judge who masters the best english language and I don´t think we should use mis-spellings here or there as a tool to attack others and in that case (mr) was actually meant to spell (me) but on the keyboard the letter e lies next to r.
So ,please contributors of this blog calm down and let´s try to be more respectful of each other. Let´s focus on issues and not persons.I already feel silly explaing that I too is a 100% Shiit (shii) but that doesn´t make me less worthy of saying what I want as long as I don´t use offensive words and take things personal.

Sheko Mako:

About the Iraqi Army:

Yes,we have few reasons to be proud of the Iraqi Army.But then again can you name a nation who is unified in feeling proud of it´s army ,the americans and their vietnam and Hiroshima?,The Germans and their Nazis?,The Soviets and their red army ?,The Syrians and their 10s of millitary coups?....etc.
That´s not the issue .My understanding of what a&eiraqi wanted to emphasize was the symbolic and ironic value of having the big and old Iraqi officers who fought against Iran under trial by those who fought them back (the Iraqi Safawis,Hizb Al Daawa ).Pride or shame ,kissing hands or kissing boots ,these are minor and not unheard of details of tragedies of wars .The REAL issue is that any State (dawla) by definition MUST have an army .The current government can not,do not and will not build a NATIONAL iraqi army ,which is a necessity to establish a state (Dawla), but the current government is at the same time very keen to execute the former officers in a well crafted plan to make it impossible have an accumulation of proffessional experience that may lead to the emergence of a proffessional army instead of doctrined milittias.My point is this :It´s wrong to trial former Iraqi officers who fought against Iran for many reasons ,but the most important of allin my opinion, because it serves only in dissolving The State of Iraq by depriving it from it´s experts (the word expert is relative here ).Exactly the same plan that kills university masters,doctors,scientists and destroy bridges and buildings ..etc.... ( do you ,Sheko Mako , draw a certain conclusion when knowing that Jalal Talabani signed a contract to re-build AL Askari shrine within months and that president G.Bush offered to re-build it but no one signed a contract or offered to build or fix an electricity station? )

Concerning your opinion about the Iraqi-Irani war:
Who started it and which side won in the end is a matter of continious debate .I have a question to you :
If you were a Bahreni citizen ,18 years old,2007 would you or would you not need to sit and think and worry about what will happen to Bahrain if Iran made it´s threats true and took Bahrain ,the same way Saddam foolishly wanted to take Kuwait ( A scenario which is not far fetched by the way )?
My point is that it´s not as simple as you put it that neither Iraqi people nor Iranian people wanted the war and that it was an ideological struggle between two dogmatically opposite regimens.No it is not that simple.Bahrain has Shiits (shias ) community.Think about that .I tell you a secret : when I was 13,14,15, 16 years old It was standard in our household that my father always ,always listened to Irani Radio listening ,breathlessly and joyfully , to news about Irani army make victories killing more Iraqi soldiers and taking Al Fao (I remember the daily chant Allaho Akbar Khomeini Rekhbar ).As I think of it now ,I feel very ashamed publishing this fact on the net.But this is a shining and clear example of how complicated and sensative was the situation during the Iraqi-Irani war.Here we come back to the same theme :Iraqi shiits (shias) lacking the sense of iraqi citizenship and national identity which expresses itself in loyality to Iran .It´s time to re-assess history and start differntiating between hating Saddam and the responsibility of being a patriotic Iraqi.Something which my father ,unfortunately and blasphamously missed.Many of his friends took Iran´s side at that time .Ironically this group of old mislead men were all former communists !!! ) . I knew of two young men who lived in our street in the 80s and were secretly members of Hizb AL Daawa but were at the same time drafted to the army ,they used to show off by saying that when ever they were on the frontlines they used to shoot fellow Iraqi in the back.I tell the truth.Loyality question again !

The most important of all is this : I need you all to think of and contemplate my second post here (the one that starts by I agree totally with a&e) .In that post I tried to draw a relation/correlation between the sheer practice of Shiit faith (shiasm) at this critical point of time can indirectly and practically lead to question loyality of Iraqi Shiits (shias) .Read the post again and judge the mechanism I suggested.Feel free to disagree but Do Not brag to me because all my family members are very good practicing shias .

Good day

ramshakle1 said...

Here I go again.Sorry.Aloud should have spelled allowed.


About Hawaza members speaking Persian.

Come On Sheko Mako ! We are not talking about AL Hawza in it´s definitions as religeous school or university located in Najaf which has by it´s university camp-like nature included/attracted (students) from different origins and languages.I don´t think that´s what a&eiraqi meant.I think he means Hawza members who are Iraninans in origin but are living and are established in Iraq.They have power and are actually using their power in interfering in political issues ( when Al Distoor was being written for example we saw many politicians pilgrim to Najaf seeking blessing from this and that Sayyid, among those were not few Iranis.That´s why Iraq has a unique constitution in the world that frankly and unashamedly establishes for and lead to a LEGITIMATE powerful hand of the Sayyid in politics.Some Sayyids are Iranians.Read AL Distoor Text and do the math !)
So ,plz, the situation is not similar to Harvard Unversity having students speaking chinese on the campus !
Comparison to AL Qaeda recruiting people with different languages from all parts of the world is irrelevant.AL Qaeda is not a government and is not elected and to many is a terrorist organisation while Al Hawaza is a place where United Nation´s representative and the american ambassador frequently visited !

Iraqi Mojo said...

"first Shiits or Shias ..the same."

No, not the same. If you insist on using the western spelling, it is 'Shiite', which I don't like to use because so many westerners (especially Americans who hate Muslims) turn it into a derogatory term. But it is "Shiite" if that's what you want to use and I think your use of "Shiit" is insulting, unless you meant it as a joke.

Furthermore I am surprised that a Shii would put all the Shia in the same boat, as if we all think and act the same way. I thought that only Americans and Sunni Arabs (stupid ones - a minority) think this way and this is why I assumed that you are Sunni. And I can't believe that a Shii would quote an article that claims that the only real Iraqis are Iraq's Sunni Arabs! But hey, whatever - we are free to write and quote what we want, and I commend Sheko Mako for allowing such freedoms.

Now having said this, I agree that Maliki's government is not good for Iraq. I have argued before that Hakim and Sadr do not belong anywhere in government - they should be relegated to teaching fundamentalist Shii Islam in Nejef and Kerbala. But to assume that all Shia think and act like them is ridiculous, and as sectarian and dysfunctional as Maliki's government is, it is much better than what was there before, imo. Hopefully the Iraqi people will do better in the next election.

You guys might like Konfused Kid's latest post The Passion of Hussein

Iraqi Mojo said...

"It seems you know nothing about Arabic history apart from what you were taught blindly."

I keep thinking about this, and I must say that I find it odd that even 'friends' among the Arabs seem to love to insult each other. It's no wonder the Arab world is so messed up.

Ramshakle1 said...

Sheko Mako :
We once argued about the destructive role that Al Sistani played in the post-Saddam Iraq.
You meant then that Al Sistani is ,after all, a man of religeon and not of politics.
Read my posts above to review my defintion of the Shiíte Institution : today I read this link and I find myself more convinced that the Iraqi Shiite institution is RESPONSIBLE along with the Bush Government for the misery of Iraq.

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2D21766-93A1-411C-97FD-2FB9A0F1CC6C.htm

(Copy and Paste).

Denying that Iraqi Safawis exist and are actively functioning is like denying that the sun rises from the east.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"today I read this link and I find myself more convinced that the Iraqi Shiite institution is RESPONSIBLE along with the Bush Government for the misery of Iraq."

Al Jazeera blames the Shiite institution for all of Iraq's misery? I am not surprised! I wonder if the Ba3thi murderers (starting with Saddam) and the Salafi groups like Al Qa3ida are at all responsible for Iraq's misery.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Hey Osama!

"Long time no see! Caught your latest video, man. You know, we really need to talk, one Muslim to another.

Let me tell you something, Osama. It's really strange to hear you calling on people to convert to Islam, since al-Qaeda's specialty is butchering Muslims. Look at Iraq, where your brave followers show up with car bombs at schools, markets, and funerals to murder entirely innocent Muslim men, women, and children. And it's not like your point is to target Shiite "heretics," since the avowed purpose of al-Qaeda's slaughter is to goad Shiites into killing Sunnis. Maybe you want more converts to replace the tens of thousands of Iraqi Muslims you've murdered.

And what's the result of this brilliant Iraqi strategy? Iraq's Sunnis have turned against you. I see that every story in the Western press connects your video to the supposed reconstitution of al-Qaeda in Waziristan, but the connection that matters is that your nutty video appears as Iraq's Sunni tribes have become Bush's allies. Iraq's Sunnis are gunning your guys down and informing on their hiding places. Maybe you should record a video just for them, urging them to embrace Noam Chomsky.

I guess I should say something about your tax comments, because they sound pretty crazy to my Muslim ears. Is that why you think people should convert to Islam, because it would lower their tax burden? What would the Prophet say about such a message? As for your tirade against capitalism, don't you realize that after the early conquests, Islam spread by trade? The most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, came to embrace Islam as a result of trade with Muslims. The fact is that Islamic culture was comparatively entrepreneurial, which is one of the reasons there was an Islamic Golden Age to haunt your dreams. If you want to know why that era of prosperity and learning is a receding memory, look in the mirror.

And speaking of mirrors, Osama, you look awful. Really, you should fire that colorist of yours. Because what he did to your hair, beard, and eyebrows is just criminal." --IraqPundit

Anonymous said...

You failed to mention one crucial thing in your post and that's the clerical religious system that's present in Shiism. This, IMO, explains to a great extent the loyalty a lot of Shias (not only in Iraq) have towards Iran.
Khaminei is a leading Marji, and a lot of Shias do his Taqleed. Furthermore, and unlike the Shah for instance, Iran is a purely Shiite Islamic Republic. Hence, it is viewed by a lot of Shias as a protector of their religion / sect, hence the blind loyalty.

I think the way to see it is as follows: the most blind loyalists of Iran are the religiously-minded ones (i.e. mixing politics with religion). The same way a lot of Sunnis would lump Shias in one homogeonous group and throw wild accusations at them. You'll find them mostly religious or Arabists.

Sheko Mako said...

" Khaminei is a leading Marji, and a lot of Shias do his Taqleed"

I think this is mainly in Iran. Sistani has much brader base worldwide. Khamenie, is elected by the (the council of experts) or Majlis Al-Khubara. the representatives in this council are 88 I think and are elected by the Iranian people. only those from an Iranian father and mother and hold Iranian citizenship are allowed to join this election. I think this sccheme is differnt from the Shia' clerial system and the way of choosing the Grand Marjaa'. even in Iran itself there are so many big Marajaa' with huge followers but unrecognised because they are against Wilayat Al-Faqih.

"Iran is a purely Shiite Islamic Republic. Hence, it is viewed by a lot of Shias as a protector of their religion / sect"
I agree with that.

"hence the blind loyalty".

I doubt that.

Regards

Ramshakle1 said...

I have a cousin who lives in London.On Al-Fitr Eed day I phoned him to say :Kul Aam Wa Anta Bikhayr.He politely ,but unenthused, replied that he is still fasting and that Eed for him comes tomorrow and not today because Al-Sistani said so !
I enquired that my mother in Iraq (who also follows Al-Sistani ,by the way) said it was Eed today he replied (with a certain uneasy tone as if embarrassed or disapproving or forced to the idea)that Al-Sistani (decided) that his followers who live in Europe have different Eed day than those who live in Iraq ,and so was it ,which made me a hastened cousin who wanted to congratulate his fellow muslim and older cousin a (whole) day prematuerly (and here I´m referring litrarily to the mutual frustration by 2 18-year-old when experiencing premature ejaculation !)

Funny ,you might think ?

No.

Disasterous I would call it.Why?
I´m not the least intrested in Al-Sistani (Sharií ) mathematics in concluding to different Eed-days for one and the same group of muslims within the same sect and the same wider religeon to other worldly muslims.I don´t care about how motivated or religeously righteous (in terms of Halal and Haram) Al-Sistani Eed-day distinction was implied because I ,myself, did not fast Ramadhan which denies me the right to have Eed ,besides the fact that this annual contraversy of the (first) Eed day in different Muslim countries was always a source of embarrassment for me ,let alone contraversy within the same sect (Shia) in the same coutry (Iraq) .Very unifying,ey !!!

But what I´m intrested in and keen to pin-point is this :

In My understanding ,my cousin,knowingly or not, naiively or menacely ,doesn´t matter, but he DID PERFORM AN UNPATRIOTIC POLITICAL ACT .

Read again .I mean it .

because obeying Al-Sistani (despite the the absurdity of his suggestion,at least in my opinion) ,and regardless to how (hard a believer) or (a good Ithnay Ashari ) you are will,at this point of time, only make him (Al-Sistani) and the (apparatus) he represents stronger and more influential.This end of the matter ,when examined closely, will reveal (the general and collective) strenghthening of the religeous role in Iraq.When this role is strenghened,and when our Shiíte politicians who are both RELIGEOSULY -BASED and LOYAL TO IRAN (Hizb Al Daawa,AL-Majlis AL-aál and even AL-Sdireen) sit behind the wheel of ruling ,Iran will be stronger and Iraq ,once again,is tramped under Iran´s foot.My cousin,I suppose, has his share of this mechanism.He was unpatriotic.An unpatriotic citizen is a (less) of a citizen.He and his alikes have no right in complaining about (the situation) in Iraq because They ARE the essence of that miserable situation .
If I fasted Ramadhan (being the nice,clean,faithful,pet and worthy Shiíte/Muslim that I´m expected to be )I would have driven an enormous pleasure out of having my Eed the day most of the rest of the Muslim nation,or if obligedly narrowed, Shiíte nation has it´s Eed whether I lived in Europe or Asia.Just like my unvoting,I claim that this is a patriotic and responsible act that at such dogmaticly strained and oppressed times in the double-invaded Iraq would surmount to be viewed (having Eed-day one or two days earlier AL-Sistani Calculus,that´s to say) as an act of struggle to claim back my right to make a change and revolt and thus be a (better) citizen :entitled to criticise (the situation) in Iraq.

I don´t know how convluted my idea is but I hope that you understood what I´m trying to say.

Sheko Mako:

Small details,passing and casual daily moves,words or comments made by (ordinary) Iraqis make up the big picture that one can not see if one is engraved in Sociolgy and History.Stretch out and get out of the tunnel vision of Semi-acadmeic theses .My cousin´s story is the bread and salt of the matter not what an old and shelved history/religeous book (what actual difference does it make if Al-Sistani was not elected by the council pf experts?Look from above at the over-all and the wide spectrum of power Al-Sistani attains today from telling people when to break their fasting to commenting on the execution of Sultan Hashim...and every imgainable other thing in between ) .In this hard time of our (existence) as Iraqis,no sterile, aspetic mannerism quoted from unfertile library books is a remedy for cure . One should dive waist-deep in the mud to get out clean !

I say it once more to you Sheko Mako: The truth is just under your nose grab it.Common sense can sometimes be more useful device than intelligence,lest you lose your case .

Have a Good Day !

Ramshakle1

Ramshakle1 said...

((If I fasted Ramadhan (being the nice,clean,faithful,pet and worthy Shiíte/Muslim that I´m expected to be )I would have driven an enormous pleasure out of having my Eed the day most of the rest of the Muslim nation,or if obligedly narrowed, Shiíte nation has it´s Eed whether I lived in Europe or Asia.Just like my unvoting,I claim that this is a patriotic and responsible act that at such dogmaticly strained and oppressed times in the double-invaded Iraq would surmount to be viewed (having Eed-day one or two days earlier AL-Sistani Calculus,that´s to say))..



To be totally honest and clear ,I should empphasize here that the pleasure I would get in this case is more because I would have participated in weakening AL-Sistani by doing other than he tells me to do ,more than because I would have participated in consolidating the concept of Muslim nation (As an Iraqi I don´t think that wider (sunni) Islamic Nation is relevant in the current Iraqi political status.Rather more harm represented by -Al Qaeda infiltration - than good.The conecpt of Arabic Nation on the other hand weighs heavier in this context as a necessory TOOL to appose Safawism in Iraq of today which ,as you see, brings back the echo of one aspect the Kawmi Baáth clash with Khomeini´s Iran but we talked about that before and we may talk about this in the future).

Robert said...

Great blog, great information
XangoBusiness Goji

Anonymous said...

I accidentally found this web site and let me tell you I am amazed at this discussion. I am an Iranian/Persian. Please know that from our perspective, we feel no kinship with Iraqi shiits. To us they are as Arab as the rest of Iraqi's. They are Arabs. I understand the current government of Iran is hell bent on the shiit-ism but the majority of us are not. Most of the time we wish we had nothing to do with Arabs. I am shocked about the sensitivity people show in Iraq for the Shiits as Iranian/Persian agents. We really rather have nothing to do with them. Believe me, that is how most of us feel. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

الدليل الشامل للمدونات العربية
سياسة ، اقتصاد ، ثقافة ، حوار ،
أدب ، شعر ، فن والمزيد

http://arab-blogs-guide.blogspot.com/
http://blogsguide2.blogspot.com/

---------------


free forex signals

flexible recommendations

for 7 main pairs daily & weekly

expected trends - support and resistance levels

books & e-books - forex guide

and more....

http://fx-up.com/
http://fx-up.blogspot.com/

نقدم في هذا الموقع توصيات مجانية مرنة لسبعة أزواج رئيسية في سوق ( الفوركس ) العملات
تحتوي على الترند المتوق
و مستويات الدعم والمقاومة بشكل يومي و أسبوعي ، إضافة إلى المزيد

Anonymous said...

I found a very good free web site!

http://hav.uni.cc

The Arab Advocate said...

There is quite a bit of inaccurate assertions in your outburst and, sorry to say, straight out lies. I'll just take one. Saddam Hussein and the Arab Baath Socialist Party were never anti-Shia nor did they equate the Shia of Iraq with the Chauvinistic, expansionist, anti-Arab Persians next doort. They recognized they were Arabs and Iraqis and never differentiated between them any other segment of the population.

The martyred-President, the last legitimate ruler of Iraq, did clamp down hard on active opposition formed, financed, and trained by the Iranian regime such as the Al-Dawa sectarian gang.

The notion that the arrest, trial, and punishment of such traitors and criminals is an attack on the Shia of Iraq is itself the TRUE ANTI-SHIA argument.

Nobody should reduce Iraq's Shia to a few groups of sectarian gangsters or the filthy Khomeiniyeen. They do not represent the Shia, and you should have more respect for them than that. Saddam Hussein certainly did.

Anonymous said...

Salaam, I am a research scientist trying to understand Iraqi bloggers. I would appreciate your participation by emailing me your responses to leishiraqia[@]gmail.com.

Your blog identity:
Is your blog name the same your true identity? Why?

Do you only blog in English? Why?

Did you blog about the Iraqi elections in 2010? Why?

Thank you very much for participating.

Anonymous said...

We [url=http://www.onlinecraps.gd]casinos online[/url] be subjected to a ample library of totally unsolicited casino games in regard to you to monkey tricks privilege here in your browser. Whether you pine for to training a provender game strategy or just examine exposed a some late slots in the presence of playing in the direction of genuine in dough, we procure you covered. These are the exacting same games that you can treat cavalierly at true online casinos and you can with them all quest of free.