Sistani threatens to turn to Militia
Sadr Calls for Calm
The shoe seems to be on the other foot now, with Muqtada al-Sadr attempting to cool Iraq's Shiites down and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani threatening to create a paramilitary to protect Shiites.
Al-=Hayat says that [Ar.] the Sunni cleric Abdul Ghafur al-Samarra'i led a demonstration of Sunnis in Samarra' in protest against the "Excommunicators" for having attempted to set off a sectarian civil war in Iraq by bombing the shrine. They also blamed "the Americans". Al-Samarra'i asked for restraint and the avoidance of civil war. Sunni and Shiite demonstrators in the city (but presumably mostly Shiite) chanted "With our spirits and our blood, we sacrifice ourselves for you, O Imam!" [Bi'r-ruh wa'd-dam nufdika ya Imam!]
The ministers of defense and the interior made a joint announcement that the Iraqi armed forces had been put on alert for any contingency.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was shown on Iraqiyah television meeting with the other 3 grand ayatollahs in Najaf, among whom he is first among equals. They include Bashir Najafi, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad and Muhammad Sa`id al-Hakim. Sistani called for self-discipline and for peaceful demonstrations. He said Shiites must not attack Sunni mosques, but called for them to demonstrate peacefully. He laid responsibility for security on the Iraqi government, saying that it "is called today more than at any time in the past to shoulder its full responsibilities in stopping the series of criminal actions that have targeted holy spaces. If the security apparatuses are unable to safeguard against this crisis, the believers are able to do so, by the aid of God."
Astonishingly, Sistani seems to be threatening to deploy his own militia, Ansar Sistani, if the Iraqi government doesn't do a better job of protecting Shiites and their holy sites. One lesson Sistani will have taken from the bombing of the Askariyah shrine in Samarra is that he is not very secure in Najaf, either. But all we need in Iraq is yet another powerful private sectarian militia!
Muqtada al-Sadr had been in Lebanon. He cut short his trip and went overland to Iraq. He told the Syrian news agency that he condemns this "despicable crime" and called the Iraqi people to "unity and solidarity so as to deny any opportunity to those who wish to ignite public turmoil."
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said during a press conference in Baghdad that the statements of the US ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had "contributed to greater pressure [on the Shiites] and gave a green light to terrorist groups, and he therefore bears a part of the responsibility." Al-Hakim has long wanted to unleash the Badr Corps, his Shiite paramilitary, the Badr Corps, but has been checked by the Americans so far.
The Association of Muslim Scholars [hardline Sunni] called for calm but then blamed the Americans for the downward spiral of conditions.
After Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei blamed the US and Israel for the bombing on Wednesday, Shiites all over the world staged demonstrations in some of which they burned US and Israeli flags.
On the other hand, the thousands of protester in Bahrain blamed Sunni "excommunicators" instead.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/23/2006 12:34:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
The Sunni demonstration in Samarra sounds like a sweet gesture. They blamed the blast on the "excommunicators," which I assume is your translation of what other news sources called takfiris. So if I understand this correctly, religiously tolerant Sunnis were blaming intolerent Sunnis for the attack on the Shiite holy place. This is the kind of attitude most Iraqis would have to display if Iraq were to pull together. No doubt it tooks some courage for the Sunni cleric.
I heard you on CBC Radio the other day Professor. Well done.
I guess it just shows that though Sistani has been trying to keep the Shiites from rising to the bait, even he has limits. If the Sunni insurgents want a fight bad enough, and are willing to commit this level of insult, then civil war may be unavoidable.
The After Saddam Hussein era has an appropriate acronym - ASH.
I wonder if the Pentagan is already using it?
I read some comments, in the Los Angeles Times today, from an Iraqi that the American military should have done more to protect the mosques -- both Sunni and Shiite. A false checkpoint was created yesterday, and almost four dozen lost their lives after protesting in Baghdad.
A government must maintain the authority to use force as well as secure the peace. The entire process of force-to-peace goes hand in hand when considering governance. America has never maintained that legitimacy in Iraq, and the priority should have been the construction of such legitimacy in the Iraqi forces. The attacks on the Shrine of the 10th and 11th (12th as well, in a sense) Imams have severely undermined the legitimacy of the struggling Iraqi government. I think this explains Sistani's comments to a great extent. He already sent signals before the recent election that he was not pleased with the security situation and would not express an endorsement for a single party.
Similarly, the Sunnis are now outraged that they were not better protected by the Shiite government leaders, and this has resulted in an impasse in the government formation talks.
This absence of safety for one of the holiest of places in Shiite Islam and for the Sunni populations that must rely on nonsectarian security formations is the legacy of these tragic few days. I fear that this legacy cannot even be overcome by cooler heads prevailing.
Juan,
I am interested to hear your analysis of where Sistani would come down on this, could he maintain his hands off approach?
Here is what I see My crystal ball on Iraq.
Any thoughts on the matter?
You seem to be forgetting that the shrine attacked here was holy to *Sunnis* as well as to Shiites, even if it was more central to the latter group. Which means that the shrine was bombed by the small foreign ultra-extremist al-Qaeda Salafi branch of fighters in Iraq, or perhaps by someone else. But a supposed attack by Iraqi Sunni Arabs on the mosque simply does not add up, either in the target itself or in the anticipated effects.
Your scornful tone was uncalled for.
The Sunni insurgents have attempted to provoke the Shiites on a number of occasions. I wasn't aware the shrine was considered holy to Sunnis too, so that would be a valid reason to doubt they did it, except, someone did it, and if it wasn't the Sunnis, and it definitely wasn't the shias, who was it? Would the site not also be holy to the Salafi branch you mention? What is their motive in provoking a civil war? I expect they don't approve of Shiite Islam, but would they engage in a struggle for religious purity with infidels still in the country?
My point is, this was almost certainly perpetrated by Muslims, against a Muslim shrine. Certainly I don't doubt that Christians have burned other Christian churches in history, and just because a group is ostensibly muslim doesn't mean they're really all that devout.
The Sunnis were in charge of Iraq, and the Oil. Now they are not. They are the aggrieved party with the most to gain from winning a civil war. I picked them on motive here.
Post a Comment
<< Home