February 5, 2007
IT'S ALL JUST A MATTER OF SISTANI VS WAHHABISM:
The Road to Reformation: Al Qaeda had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world against the West, but now it is in the middle of a dirty sectarian war within Islam. (Fareed Zakaria, 2/12/07, Newsweek)
Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, both Sunnis, created Al Qaeda to be a Pan-Islamic organization, uniting all Muslims as it battled the West, Israel and Western-allied regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Neither Zawahiri nor bin Laden was animated by hatred of Shiites. In its original fatwas and other statements, Al Qaeda makes no mention of them, condemning only the "Crusaders" and "Jews." [...]Posted by Orrin Judd at February 5, 2007 8:22 AMThe trouble for Al Qaeda is that as a practical matter, loathing Shiites works in only a few places: principally Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some parts of the gulf. Most of the rest of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are turned off by attacks on their co-religionists.
So, an organization that had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West has been dragged instead into a dirty internal war within Islam. Bin Laden began his struggle hoping to topple the Saudi regime. He is now aligned with the Saudi monarchy as it organizes against Shiite domination. This necessarily limits Al Qaeda's broader appeal and complicates its basic anti-Western strategy.
These emerging divisions weaken Al Qaeda, but they will help most Muslims only if this story ends as the Reformation did. What is currently a war of sects must become a war of ideas. First, Islam must make space for differing views about what makes a good Muslim. Then it will be able to take the next step and accept the diversity among religions, each true in its own way.
The United States should avoid taking sides in this sectarian struggle and aim instead to move the debate to this broader plain. We should encourage the diversity within Islam, which has the potential to divide our enemies. But more important, we should encourage the emerging debate within it. In the end it was not murder but Martin Luther that made the Reformation matter.
Did he write this, before or after the car bombing of the Shia moaque in Peshawar; where more than likely Bin Laden is hiding)? According to Amir Taheri, in Iraq, a member of the Shia
tribe, is alleged blamed for having let the
Mongols in back in 1258. Is he serious, the
split was formed 1326 years ago; when one sect leader beheaded another, What would Christianity be like if Peter had killed Paul. I suspect there
would be some strong feelings.
Peter and Paul had substantial issues, religious issues over Judaizing, resolved mostly in Paul's favor at the Council of Jerusalem. According to Acts, Peter had a little help from a vision before entering the house of Cornelius.
That's what religious bodies do, pray and talk. RICO's,on the other hand, do mob hits and gang wars.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 5, 2007 11:43 AMFareed's epiphany.
Posted by: ghostcat at February 5, 2007 1:28 PM..Inquisitions, Alibigensian heresies, Crusades, Cathars, Thirty Year Wars...
It's actually kind of hard to take the schism in Islam seriously because they kill so few. You've got to want it.
Posted by: oj at February 5, 2007 2:31 PMghost:
It's been a long time coming. For years I thought Zakaria was auditioning to be Tom Friedman's valet.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 5, 2007 3:27 PMFishermen just live for the moment when the lunker takes the bait.
Note the equivalence between Chistian affairs in the far past and present-day spiritual jailhouse affairs.
I may add that from one point of view the Thirty Years' War, as well as the secular usurpation which gave rise to it, were acts of culture-treason, then fomented and abetted by the Turks.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 5, 2007 4:07 PMI get oj's point but am obligated to point out:
(1)Cathars and Albigensians are one and the same.
(2) the 30 Years War, in the end, had more to do with the power politics of the secularizing nation-states than with religion -- hence the intervention of the ever-odious French under Richelieu on the supposedly "Protestant" side.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 5, 2007 5:07 PMBush is a rancher and knows a thing or two about range fires. The concept of intentionally setting a backfire is eminently transferable. Intellectuals are often mystified by such ideas.
Posted by: ghostcat at February 5, 2007 7:09 PMlou:
They got their revelation 600 years later but are only 400 years back and gaining. Not bad.
Posted by: oj at February 5, 2007 7:25 PMThe United States should avoid taking sides in this sectarian struggle and aim instead to move the debate to this broader plain.
That sounds too much like Kissingerian/Realist "balancing."
Posted by: kevin whited at February 7, 2007 3:44 PM