Uh oh. Billy Kristol is making predictions again. This time, he almost assures us, the Israelis are going to come out of this war significantly better off than they entered it. Why? I don’t know. Something about the terrain and setting more realistic goals. It’s idiocy, basically. But the most glaring idiocy is a talking point someone emailed Kristol directly from Tel Aviv. Gaza, it seems, is actually part of the nation-state of Iran, and the Israelis have actually just invaded Iran. If they succeed, they will have defeated Iran, but if they do not succeed, Iran will be victorious. I don’t know what they hell the people pushing this line are smoking, but it must be some Grade A shit.
I understand that Hamas is getting some military and financial support from Iran. That’s a little bit unusual because the people of Gaza are almost all Sunni Muslims (plus a few Christians) and Iran generally supports Shi’ite movements (like Hizbollah in Lebanon). So, the Gazan government, which is not very popular in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, is willing to accept aid from the heretical Persians. Nonetheless, cooperation between the two can only go so far. The truly hardcore members of Hamas are not natural friends of the revolutionary government in Tehran. An imperfect analogy might be the cooperation between Stalin’s Soviet Union and Churchill’s United Kingdom during the Second World War. They were united against fascism, even though they saw each other as mortal enemies (as became apparent immediately after the war). Would it make sense to say that the Battle of Stalingrad was really a fight against England? No, not really.
There is no obvious way for Israeli aggression in Gaza to restore Fatah to power there. It’s not clear that they can incentivize the Gazans to stop rocket attacks. And, by taking these actions, Israel is suffering another terrible blow in world opinion, which could translate to more boycotts and other painful repercussions. It could even begin to erode U.S. opinion to a point that politicians are forced to respond.
Even if this war were a war against Iran, it’s pretty stupid to wage a war that is almost ensured to benefit Iran. No? But that’s just a silly short-term talking point to try to justify something really idiotic. Israel is too weak to stop rocket attacks by force. They are too strong to worry about Iran. The Israelis are collectively hyperventilating. The whole nation needs to go Yoga class or something.
A thoughtful piece that attempts to explain Israel’s strategy. But, while it is thoughtful, it is also too sanguine.
Just wanted to add that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims do *NOT* consider Shiites heretical. While the Sunni-Shiite divide is old, it really wasn’t even an issue until the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Prior to that, Sunni-Shia intermarriage in Iraq was commonplace and normal.
There are, of course, Salafist Sunnis (Taliban/Al qaeda)who consider Shiites heretical, but neither Hamas nor the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are Salafist.
it really wasn’t even an issue until the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Prior to that, Sunni-Shia intermarriage in Iraq was commonplace and normal.
Yeah, well prior to the invasion of Iraq, the country was also a mostly secular state and the various religious groups were kept at the fringes of society. By force, if necessary. That opens up the ability to be a little more ecumenical in your dealings with folks from other religious groups.
I’m not saying your point is wrong, just that pre-invasion Iraq isn’t exactly the best exemplar of the argument you’re trying to make.
this is also true.
For example, Ayotollah Sistani was not even considered by the Americans prior to the invasion because he held no sway over Saddam’s policies. But once Saddam was removed, Sistani was the most powerful man in Iraq. Sistani has been mostly a moderating force in Iraq since the invasion, but his version of Islam is much less compatible with Sunni society than the secularized cosmopolitan version that prevailed in Baghdad prior to the war. Sunnis rebelled against the very idea of Sistani having sway.
Point well taken. Nevertheless, the acceptability of intermarriage is probably the best litmus test for interracial or inter-religious tolerance. It was widely accepted in pre-invasion Iraq and I don’t think a any baathist policy could have forced people who disdain each other into marriage.
This isn’t to say that there is no Sunni-Shiite tension. There is, of course. Saudi Arabia is a prime example of where the Shiite minority is oppressed.
But they are not natural enemies by any means. That is why Hizbullah’s Hassan Nasrallah, along with Ahmadinejad are the 2 most popular politicians in, for example, Egypt. And if the Muslim Brotherhood were ever to overthrow Mubarak, Iran would be their first choice for an ally.
Nonynony, it is not just in post-statehood, pre-invasion Iraq that you find a lack of problems between Sunnis and Shi`as, it is throughout the entire history of the two sects, which covers the period from the 7th century until the 21st.
During that 1400-1500 year period there have been only three significant incidents of what could be termed sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi`as. All three of those incidents were a result of a foreign invasion and occupation. In each case once the foreign occupation ended, relations returned quickly to normal.
I would be happy to provide more details later if anyone is interested, but that’s it in a nutshell.
Iraq is unique in its Sunni-Shi’a relations. You will not see the same degree of intermarriage in Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Afghanistan or Pakistan. Iraq is the intersection and melting pot of several cultures and religious traditions. It is where the Turks, Kurds, Persians, and Arabs all live together and so has always been more pluralistic than other Arab nations. But even in Iraq, there were significant tensions between Sunnis and Shi’ites prior to the invasion. You can see evidence of that even in Baghdad, where Saddam City (now Sadr City) was a large slum for Shi’ites and where resistance to the regime was strongest. You could see it in Saddam’s refusal to allow annual Shi’ite pilgrimages to Najaf and Kufa and Kerbala.
So, while it’s true that Saddam’s Iraq was a model for Islamic ecumenicalism, it is not true that everything was peaches and cream. As for the idea that Shi’ites are heretics, that’s standard Sunni Islam. What’s important is how much people happen to care. In a place like Afghanistan, they care a great deal. In old Baghdad? Not so much.
Is it really so they are considered heretics? The split is political, not religious, and Shia go to Mecca just like everyone else. Probably Hurria knows for sure about this. Of course there is also the Persian/Arab divide.
There is a difference between al-kafirun ‘unbelievers’ and heretics. Shi’a beliefs are heretical but that does not mean that they are kafirs. They still follow the teachings of the prophet and they still perform the pillars of Islam. There is no single authoritative voice in Islam that can determine the facts on these issues, so it depends on where you are and what point in history you are talking about.
Iraq was about as relaxed about these issues as anyplace within the Islamic world.
It also depends on who you are, what kind of environment you were educated and grew up in, and whether you are an independent, critical thinker or not. One of the important principles of Islam is to think for oneself and always question – kind of inconvenient if you are an autocrat trying to dictate your point of view. So, it’s easier not to teach that particular important Islamic principle if you want an obedient, unquestioning population.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the decentralized nature of Islam. There is a certain level of chaos to having a zillion different religious authorities with little to do than think of more new and sometimes increasingly bizarre conflicting fatwas, but at least there is no pope-like figure who has the authority to impose something really horrible on everyone.
As someone raised in the Protestant heritage, I fully understand the advantages.
By the way, I meant to mention something about the concept of kefirun since you mentioned it. Just as there is no real agreement on the question of whether Shi`as are heretics, and everyone is pretty much left to decide that for themselves, so there is disagreement about whether Christians and Jews are kefirun or believers.
The Qur’an repeatedly makes it absolutely unquestionably clear that Jews and Christians (and Sabaeans too) are believers and not kefirun, and that the Torah and the Gospels are as much the word of Allah as the Qur’an is. That does not stop certain groups of Muslims, unfortunately, from deciding otherwise, and they use all kinds of pretexts to justify that deadly wrong view.
In all honesty I have never cared enough to look into the justifications for considering Shi`as to be heretics. It just always seemed to unreasonable on its face. Maybe I should one of these days.
BooMan is right in that Iraq – which is by the way where Shi`ism came into being, and still the center of Shi`ism (the Iranians’ attempts to make that claim notwithstanding) – has historically been a more pluralistic society in general than many others. As he suggests, that is largely a result of the fact that Iraq has for millennia had a very diverse population in which the various groups integrated well (necessary, isn’t it, if a diverse society is to survive for very long). Iraqi society has also historically been characterized by strong urbanization, which sociologists consider a significant factor.
Sunnis and Shi`as have historically lived together quite happily, including healthy rates of intermarriage in Syria and Lebanon, also historically very pluralistic societies. There have been increasing tensions among all the different ethno-sectarian groups in Lebanon, largely if not virtually entirely as a result of effects of colonial rule, including the sectarian-based political system the French imposed on Lebanon, as well as pressures from Israel, both before, during, and after their various invasions and occupations. In Syria Sunni attitudes toward Shi`as (mostly `Alawis in Syria) and vice versa are quite an individual thing, but by and large all the different groups are integrated very well in Syria, and most people don’t pay much attention to those sorts of things. Don’t know what the rate of intermarriage is in Syria, but I know there are mixed families.
He is also right that in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the Sunni-Shi`a divide is very strong. That is a function of a number of factors, not always the same ones in each case. The Saudi Wahhabis see themselves as religiously superior to everyone in every way, including other Sunnis, so it is not surprising that they see Shi`ism as heresy. And the Shi`as in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the south are seen as a political and economic threat, which makes it very convenient to turn it into a religious issue (kind of, but not exactly like the dynamic in the struggle over Palestine, in which a battle over territory, and human and national rights has become increasingly characterized by certain elements on both sides as a religious war).
Even though the original split was primarily political, there were some differences over religious questions as well. The degree to which the religious differences are important is pretty much an individual matter. In the circles I move in, which are by no means strictly Iraqi, even most of the very, very religious Sunnis will not argue that Shi`as are heretics, but of course my circle of family, friends, and associates are not a random sample. One big exception is my Pakistani family. We haven’t talked about it much, but I sense it is a subject better avoided.
There is nothing I know of in the religious tradition of Islam that discriminates between one sect and another, but I am not a religious scholar, so I would want to consult with someone more deeply versed in these things than I am before I made a more definitive statement than that. It is difficult to see how there could be since everything is based on the Qur’an, plus, depending on the sect, the Hadith, which are the words and deeds of Mohammad, and Islam did not really begin to develop into sects until after Mohammad’s death. So, I think this Shi`as as heretics business is just another example of men getting their hands on a good idea and transmogrifying it into something that is at times quite ugly.
Booman this statement “As for the idea that Shi’ites are heretics, that’s standard Sunni Islam” is untrue. Here are some statements from Alazhar University in Cairo, one of the oldest institutions of Islamic theology, regarding Shia Islam;
“A decision to introduce into the Azhar’s curricula the study of Zaidite and Twelver Shi’ah (Ja’farite or Imamite) fiqh on a par with the fiqh of the four Sunni schools (madhhabs). This last step is one which the new Rector had long ago advocated in his earlier writings; according to the Azhar Journal, [5] he and Shaikh Mustafa al-Maraghi frequently adopted the Shi’ah view rather than any of the Sunni views on disputed points of fiqh. A Sunni-Shi’ah Rapprochement Society (Jama’at al-Taqrib) was founded as long ago as 1948, on the initiative, it is said, of an Iranian Shi’ah named Shaikh Muhammad Taqi Qumi; and this society, under the leadership of an Iranian named Shaikh Kazim, continued to enjoy the Azhar’s sponsorship.”
(snip)
“Firstly, Islam does not oblige any of its followers to follow a particular madhhab but grants to every Muslim the right to adhere initially to any madhhab which has been correctly transmitted and whose precepts are documented in specific books, and that the adherent of any of these madhhabs may shift to another one without there being any objection to his so doing; and
Secondly, that the madhhab known as the Twelver Shi’ah Imamite is one in which worship (ta’abbud) may be legally performed on a par with the madhhabs of Sunnis.” “Muslims should know this and refrain from fanaticism in favour of a particular madhhab. God’s religion and law do not belong and are not confined to any one rnadhhab. They are all earnest seekers for truth (mujtahidun), rewarded and accepted by God. It is permissible that anyone not qualified to have insight or to search for truth (ijtihad) should follow one of them (taqlid) and carry out the prescriptions of its fiqh alike in worship and in conduct (‘ibadat wa mu’amalat).”
A link would be good.
Cairo carries more weight than anyone else, and so your point is true. I tried to express this by saying that no one in Islam carries definitive weight, and the matter is not settled. However, if Cairo is willing to grant the benefit of the doubt then my statement is not true. Cairo comes as close to ‘standard’ as anything.
In a broader sense, however, Shi’a beliefs are seen as heretical in the sense that they are not in keeping with mainstream Sunni belief.
Sorry, here is the link.
http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/shaltut.html
The Current Rector of Al Azhar issued a similar statement about two years ago, but I can’t find it now.
I don’t want to split hairs and probably neither of us is in any position to talk about the intricacies of Islamic theology.
The take home message is that public sentiment in the much of the Sunni world is very pro Hizbollah and pro Iran. Obviously, not everywhere. Throughout the Shiite world, most are sympathetic to Palestinians and specifically to Hamas.
Full Disclosure; Maybe I should have said it before, but I’m Egyptian in origin.
Thanks, Lysander, this is extremely valuable information for me. It confirms what I “knew” in my bones, had never checked out in any real way. Now thanks to you I not only “know” it, I also know it – and so do a whole lot of other people!
BooMan, your statement that Iraq is unique in its history of Sunni-Shi`a relations is not really accurate. Lebanon should also not be included with Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – they are not the same animal! Lebanon, despite its terrible sectarian problems, is historically a pluralistic, secular society and state, much more like Iraq than Saudia, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. It is historically a very diverse, pluralistic, westernized society, and I don’t have stats, but intermarriage has been quite common.
You also appear to be conflating sectarian conflict with political conflict and government suppression of opposition. Admittedly, they sometimes appear to be pretty tightly entangled, but in my experience the basis for a conflict is usually either politically or religiously based, and less usually both.
“You can see evidence of that even in Baghdad, where Saddam City (now Sadr City) was a large slum for Shi’ites and where resistance to the regime was strongest.“
Maybe I am putting too fine a point on it, but what is now known as Sadr City (originally named Madinat Al Thawra – Revolution City) was never “for Shi’ites”. It was built in the late ’50’s, early ’60’s by Abdul Karim Qasim to provide low cost housing. By coincidence, not by design, the majority of its early population were migrants from rural Maysan province and were mostly Shi`as. Sunnis, Christians, and Jews also lived there. There may still be some Christians there – don’t know – but there were Christians living there at the time of the 2003 invasion and there are still churches there. Somewhere in the back of my mind I have an inkling that there was a synagogue there, but it has been a long time, so that could be a figment of my imagination.
The original basis of the resistance in Sadr City was not so much Shi`a versus Sunni, but more religious state versus secular state. Perhaps that is another discussion for another time.
“You could see it in Saddam’s refusal to allow annual Shi’ite pilgrimages to Najaf and Kufa and Kerbala.“
The reason for that was not sectarian based. The reason for that was that the strongest and most open threat to the regime was from parties, led mainly by Shi`a authorities, that aimed to overthrow the secular regime and turn Iraq into an Islamic state. In fact, the Da`wa party, one of the main opposition parties, was not strictly Shi`a, and its goal was to work with Sunni leaders to transform Iraq into an Islamic state. Saddam stopped the pilgrimages not for sectarian reasons, but to protect the regime from the threat of huge gatherings of emotionally hyped-up people whose leaders wanted to overthrow it and impose their own form of religious rule.
Thanks for all the comment. In any event the tone of the Shi’a, with their emphasis on mourning, is very different from that of the Sunni. I have a question about something else. A friend who has been in Iraqi Kurdistan told me that in southern Iraq the pronounciation of Arabic has been influenced by the pronounciation of Farsi. Is that right?
Thank you, Lysander!
Also would add that the rape of Gaza is the Neoconservatives’ consolation prize since they didn’t get the war they really wanted which would have been an attack on Iran.
Now Kristol will argue that the U.S> needs to attack Iran because…it was so easy to defeat ‘Iran’ in Gaza.
Also, Iran is a convenient boogeyman. Many of the congressional Democrats will vie to see who can demonize Iran more, just to make AIPAC happy. Some criticism of Israel’s behavior in Gaza (especially as regards civilian casualties) has seeped into the MSM in recent days. George Bisharat just had an excellent editorial in the SF Chronicle today. The Protests at Israeli Consulates across the world are getting some coverage as well.
This conflict may be doing wonders for the popularity of the “War Politicians” and Deciders as they prep for the upcoming Israeli elections. But it is creating image problems for Israel internationally and even in the US. When all else fails in Israeli PR, they can try blaming Iran.
I doubt that yoga will reverse Israel’s acting out of the Stockholm syndrome. What they do need is a diet: they get US aid when and if they behave as a civilized nation. Unfortunately now that the US is a rogue state, we’re in no position to impose restraints on anybody, much less our mirror image. Hopefully, the new administration will manage to restore enough of America’s standing in the world to allow us to, at long last, put giant strings on the blood money we dole out to the worst elements in Israel.
No chance of this happening anytime soon. The new administration? As every reasonable person is required to say in public, let’s just wait and see. As quite a few reasonable say in private, forget it.
Learned a lot from this diary. Just don’t ask me what it was. A lot. Kristol will never change: a right wing Neocon to the grave.
The bottom line: When has Bill Kristol ever been right about anything?