Iraq Preachers Lambaste Senate
The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases sermons given in Iraq on Friday, both Sunni and Shiite.
'Round-up of Iraqi Friday Sermons 28 Sep
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Major Iraqi television channels - Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah, Baghdad Baghdad Satellite Channel, Baghdad Al-Sharqiyah, Baghdad Al-Furat, Cairo Al-Baghdadiyah, and Baghdad Al-Diyar - are observed on 28 September to carry the following reports on Friday sermons:
Al-Iraqiyah: Within its 1700 GMT newscast, Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah Television in Arabic - government- sponsored television station, run by the Iraqi Media Network - is observed to carry the following report on today's Friday sermons:
"In a Friday sermon, Shaykh Jalal-al-Din al-Saghir [Shiite], imam and preacher of the Buratha Mosque, warned those who conspire against the Iraqi Government and the political process in the country against what they do. At the same time, he urged the Iraqis to unite in order to safeguard the political plan and to defend it in any way."
Shaykh Al-Saghir says: "Plotting against the political process, although it targets the Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC), goes far beyond the UIC. Although it now targets Dr Al-Maliki's government and those with this government, the plotting goes far beyond this."
He adds" "Our defense of the political process should also include the essence of this process. The essence of the political process is that it has liberated the people's will and kept this will in the hands of the sons of the people themselves."
The report adds: "Shaykh Dr Samir al-Sumayda'i [Sunni], imam and preacher of the Umm al-Qura Mosque, said that the Iraqis will not be affected by any decision that seeks to drag the country to a civil war. In his Friday sermon, Al-Sumayda'i called on the Iraqis to foil the plans of those who seek to partition the country through their unity and brotherhood."
Commenting on the "recent US Congress's decision," Al-Sumayda'i says: "The zealous sons of the country have no choice but to stand as one man and to unite in order to say no to the partitioning of the country and that we are one people, one country, one soul, and one hand."
He adds: "Every Iraqi, in the north, south, central, west, and east of the country is zealous. You should know that if we stand as one man we will find some people who support us in the south, in the center, and in the north. Thus, the occupier will never be able to divide us."
Baghdad Satellite Channel: Baghdad Baghdad Satellite Television in Arabic - television channel believed to be sponsored by the Iraqi Islamic Party - is observed to carry at 0915 GMT a Friday sermon from an unidentified mosque in Baghdad. Shaykh Dr Harith al-Ubaydi delivers the sermon.
In his Friday sermon, Al-Ubaydi discusses the responsibilities of "man" in this world since God has chosen him to "uphold the trust." He discusses the "status" of man in the "dialogue" between God and the angels in the Koran based on the following Koranic verse: "Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? - whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not." (Koranic verse, Al-Baqara, 2:30)
In order to explain how God "honored mankind," the preacher also quotes the following verse from the Koran: "We have honored the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours, above a great part of our creation." (Koranic verse, Al-Isra, 17:70)
He says that the main duty of mankind is to "implement God's laws on earth." He says that "God wants us to establish right and justice and to implement His Shari'ah."
The preacher says: "Human rights are guaranteed and protected in Islam, but the defect is in those who rule Muslims. These are rulers who are mainly preoccupied with their sensual delights and lusts."
He adds: "Their radio stations and space channels have nothing to do other than glorifying the ruler. They slaughter peoples, arrest the sons of these peoples, and torture them. They ask the peoples to celebrate their praises and glorify their status. So, the defect is in those who rule Muslims, and not in our Islam. True Muslims did not assume power, but they were deprived of it. Had they assumed power, the world would have seen the greatness of Islam and how it establishes justice and right."
Speaking about the conditions of Iraqi prisoners, the preacher says that some of them said that "they have raped us." He says: "Does Islam say rape them because they have committed a crime? Does humanity say torture them because they have committed a crime?"
Al-Sharqiyah: Baghdad Al-Sharqiyah Television in Arabic - independent, private news and entertainment channel focusing on Iraq, run by Sa'd al-Bazzaz, publisher of the Arabic language daily Al-Zaman - is not observed to carry any reports on Friday sermons for the day. Al-Furat:
Within its 1700 GMT newscast, Baghdad Al-Furat Television Channel in Arabic - television channel affiliated with the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC) led by Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim, carries the following report on today's Friday sermons:
"Shaykh Abd-al-Mahdi al-Karbala'i, imam and preacher of the Karbala Friday sermon, said that the religious authority will continue to act as a protective tent for all Iraqis. In his Friday sermon at the Al-Husayn Shrine, Shaykh Al-Karbala'i praised the recent visit by the delegation of the Al-Tawafuq (Accord) Front to Higher Religious Authority Imam Al-Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani. He said that the religious authority will continue to serve as the safety valve for Iraq and the unity of its sons."
Al-Karbala'i is then shown delivering his sermon. (Al-Karbala'i's Friday sermon is covered separately as GMP20070928676002)
The report adds: "Friday preachers termed the visit by the delegation of the Al-Tawafuq Front to Higher Religious Authority Imam Al-Sistani as a step in the right direction of bolstering national unity. Other preachers criticized the nonbinding decision the US Senate has made on a plan to partition Iraq on sectarian basis."
Commenting on the recent US Senate's decision, Shaykh Muhammad al-Haydari, imam and preacher of the Al-Khillani Mosque, says: "This is a dangerous sign on partitioning Iraq. The Iraqis should understand this sign and approach. They should reject this decision and adhere to the unity of Iraq as well as the unity of the Iraqi people -- Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, and other minorities."
The channel carries an episode of its weekly "Friday Sermons" program at 2015 GMT, as follows:
The program begins with the Friday sermon delivered by Shaykh Jalal-al-Din al-Saghir, which is covered in Al-Iraqiyah's report within its 1700 GMT newscast.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Haydari, imam and preacher of the Al-Khillani Mosque, says: "You and the world have heard that the US Senate has made a nonbinding decision to partition Iraq into three regions; a Kurdish region, a Sunni region, and a Shiite region, along with having a weak central government."
He adds: "Of course, this decision is strange. Is it reasonable for a government or legislators in a state to legislate for another state?"
He adds: "This is a dangerous sign on partitioning Iraq. The Iraqis should understand this sign and approach. They should reject this decision and adhere to the unity of Iraq as well as the unity of the Iraqi people -- Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, and other minorities. All world states should understand that they do not have the right to interfere in the affairs of other states, including Iraq, although it is weak and occupied."
The station then carries Al-Karbala'i's Friday sermon, which is covered as GMP20070928676002.
Commenting on the Karbala incidents, Shaykh Sadr-al-Din al-Qabbanji, imam and preacher of Al-Najaf Friday sermon, says that these incidents "were preplanned on the financial, organizational, and political levels." He adds that "there was a political plan." He urges the Interior Ministry to announce the results of investigations into the Karbala incidents to the public.
Shaykh Hasan al-Zamili, imam and preacher of the Al-Diwaniyah Friday sermon, says: "You have heard in the news media that a group was arrested in Al-Najaf and another in Basra. These groups took part in assassinating some of the representatives of the religious authority."
He adds: "We call on the Council of Representatives to adopt a stand on this issue and to question the committee that has been formed. This also calls on the scholars to adopt an honorable and appropriate stand toward the Karbala incidents. The political parties also should know that the 15 Sha'ban incidents have pained the hearts and made them bleed. Silence on this issue is treason and silence on the blood that was shed is also treason. Consequently, this encourages the criminals. From this pulpit and other pulpits, we have repeatedly cautioned the government against procrastinating on this issue." . . '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/30/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
Iraq was created by the British, out of ethnicities that are distinct, just so that they would fight with one another.
A barren suicide by the name of Gertrude Bell masterminded the drawing of the borders. Why should her and the British Empire's machinations be our guidelines. I don't understand.
I'm asking.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Haydari adds: "Of course, this decision is strange. Is it reasonable for a government or legislators in a state to legislate for another state?"
SG: In the definitive defining of totalitarian tautological "W"easoning, Sovereignty is ... err ... Sove(R)eignity!, isn't it!!??
Snerd
The Imam's collected praise for the delegation led by Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, head of the Sunni Islamic Party, to visit Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani seems very hopeful. It's been universally presented by Iraqi's that Shiite and Sunni's got along fine before the "liberators" (US military) invaded, and that seems to be the case in urban Arab areas.
However an AP report from Diyala province yesterday said that in a remote farming area which US troops and the Diyala governor were visiting, "Sunni and Shiite factions had fought generations-long battles":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_rocky_reconciliation_1
Juan,
Sure, the US and its legislatures need to be sensitive about what Iraqis want and to respect their sovereignty. However, I thought that the original anti-colonialist complaint about Iraq was, it was cobbled together by colonial powers from communities (Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc.) that really belonged as themselves anyway, especially the Kurds. So, Britain et al artificially created "Iraq" in the first place. Why would many "Iraqis" be so defensive of that arrangement, except out of habit or fear of instability? It could make things worse, but isn't the current conflict between sectors pretty awful already? You know that the Kurds at least, really want their own state. You can't have it both ways about what is really "natural" there.
Finally, I am convinced that Sen. Joe Biden means well. He comes across to me as a serious and worthy candidate who doesn't get his fair share of attention.
al-Saghir is not just a preacher. He is one of the top leaders of the Hakim/Badr party.
The plotting he refers to, is the visit by the Sadrists to Saudi Arabia in particular to promote an Arab/Iraqi-Shiia friendship. This is considered by Hakim and his Iranian masters nothing short of treason. It has also madenned Maliki, whose Da'wa members are still doing their unnoticed sit-ins in front of Saudi embassies around the world.
Democracy for the Iraqi "leaders" is an anathema which they find useful for the time being. They turn it on its head by declaring people having different views, which is the essense of democracy, as plotters against something they call the political process (which they see themselves as its guardians.) Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is deemed against the liberty and democracy which only their "political process" can bring. Therefore anyone opposing their views is anti-democracy!
I'm sure Joe Biden does mean well as do all the others that suggest soft partitioning but a Senate resolution calling for Iraq to divide itself is a little beyond the pale.
First we invade -
We stand by as we watch the looters
tear apart the infrastruture -
Then we dismantle the government by letting every Bathhist go -
And for good measure we also dismantle the army and the police force -
Then in the election we help work it that the Sunnis feel totally left out of the process -
And now we are all righteously pissed off that the Iraqis aren't able to get it all together...
So now "We" decide to divide these unruly ruffians up....
I'm with the Republicans on this one - Everyhing is working out as planned and besides who said this war was going to be easy (well actually Dick Cheney did but thank God everyones memory seems kind of hazy lately).
So all you Kurds just stay up there -
All you Shias you just go other there -
All you pesky Sunnis you go way way over there - I know it seems a little crowded in there for you guys but remember what my Grandma said, "What goes around comes around."
And here comes the fun part -
We are going to divide up the oil revenues in a fair and equitable way -
Ain't war grand!
It's convenient for the Iraqis to claim that it is one country, but the fact is that Kurdistan and Iraq are two entirely separate countries. Different languages, different ethnicities, different flags, different everything. The Kurds won't even let the Iraqi flag be displayed there. The Kurds have already democratically decided to have an independent country, and it is time the rest of the world accepts that and supports it. No peace will be found there until that happens. This is basically about the Iraqis wanting to steal Kurdish land and oil, not about retaining the "integrity" of a "country" that never was. As noted above, "Iraq" is a fiction created by the British, again for the purposes of stealing their oil.
The partition of Iraq into two countries, one Shiite and one Sunni, is an entirely different matter. Probably not a good idea, but that's up to the Iraqis. But Kurdistan must and should be independent.
re federalism: middle ground or minefield?
Prof Cole and readers,
Several times I've contributed comments about the need for a political solution to the war, here in our own Congress. My undergrad poli sci understanding is that bipartisan policy has a chance for implementation, and for gaining international support, beyond the 2/4 year US election cycles.
As I read Informed Comment, I don't see the Prof taking a position on BIden-Brownback discussion, other than a cryptic 'Sistani doesn't like it much'. Fair enough, but not far enough to be satisfying to me as a news junky. I guess I'll have to be patient.
My read is that there are 2.5 proposals that get serious air time in the US Congress.
Perhaps the least bipartisan is the Murtha-Hagel-Feingold-Les Paul odd-marriage that says "this isn't working: pull the plug and then mop up the mess that leaks out. Or, to use more active images, 'escape the conflagration, turn around fast and kick the escaping embers back in, to prevent the fire spreading'. Politically, the isolationists and peaceniks are not cohesive, tend to become discombobulated in a legislative offensive.
No one except Kalb has laid down an 'out now' timeline, in part because it does not offer the immediate relief (except for the next rotation of troops) that it promises. We can't really describe what we will leave in our wake, so " imagine the worst, only much worser" scenarios become the default for 'out now' prognostication.
The real-politics of Sen.s Warner and Web recently coalesced around the BIden-Brownback resolution. Biden's stated thinking is that devolution of the Iraqi state is inevitable. That perhaps recognizing the trend will allow us to get out in front of it regionally, or at least deal with it realistically. The federal concept was enshrined in the Iraq constitution, so we can talk about it without admitting the melt-down of Iraqi sovereignty just yet, until developments shatter the Maliki govt and constitution. Cordesman projects the "worser case" violence onto Federalism-turned-partition, and even O'Hanlon is pulling his 'soft partition' plan back, until the 'surge' plays out.
The current Team W policy of 'fight on to victory' has a lot more centrist Democratic support than liberals want to face up to. In addition, liberal's fear being branded, like Carter for 'losing Iran'. John Kerry ran and lost on a platform of doing a better job of prosecuting the war in 2004, advised by a national security team that supported the invasion.
I read that none of the 2007 party front runners is willing to commit to being out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Hillary certainly doesn't want to move to the left, or deliver the news that this war was never ours to win.
There is nothing attractive to me about the Biden-Brownback resolution, other than its bipartisan statement. To me, that is the process straw that I want to cling to, a promise to reach across the aisle, to use the Senate's foreign policy perogatives, to look beyond the waning surge counteroffensive toward some kind of US and Iraqi political accommodation. A glimmer of a center that is looking for a new policy is something to encourage. I prefer not to think about the other Senate resolution that passed by similar margins (if inverted bipartisanship), declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.
Back in Iraq, the factions seem to oppose federalism for non-compatriots, favor localism for areas their sectarian faction has a shot at controlling. The federal-enclave provision in the Iraqi constitution should never have passed Shiite/SIIC muster, since they want to leverage their majority over Sunni's. However, sInce the only functioning Iraqi army in 2004 was Kurdish, and some Sunni participation was needed to move home rule forward, the tools to expand the Kurd homeland were enshrined in their Constitution. Most seem to expect a Kurd referendum to move forward, when Barzani and Talibani can put the maximal Kirkuk deal together. A Basra super-province seems likely, and likely to be fought over.
Looking at Iraq from a stand-point of problem solving (or super-nanny) theory, I would want to shrink the field of action, until I could begin to implement solutions on an achievable scale. Balkanization of Iraq was a horrid idea in 2003, given the makeup of Baghdad In 2007 it looks a bit different, now that the blood has already been flowing in the direction of ethnic neighborhoods, and millions are already displaced.
"Everyone go to your room and stay there" is how family fights and prison riots are settled.
dw
The Unfortunate Resolution
If dems were not acrively involved in the recent Resolution on the division of Iraq, situation still would be bad enough. Although this idea is welcomed by the Kurds, apparent consequences of such division are really horrible.
First, because of the heavy inter-ethnic mixing in Iraq, such a split will result in heavy ethnic cleansing and huge refugee flows. Next, Sunnis will never agree on this, so Sunni insurgence will get even worse. Finally, such a split almost inevitably triggers heavy instability inside the countries neghboring Iraq, strating from Turkey. So, it is not surprising that the Iraqi Government and even the US embassy in Bghdad condemned this unfortunate resolution.
However, the problem is, it was sponsored by nobody else than Sen.Biden as a part of his presidential campaign. As a result of this ill-fated step, dems got futher involved in the desperate maneuvering around the war and opened themselves for the generic GOP demagoguery on "micromanaging the war".
Post a Comment
<< Home