Sistani and the End of Islam? 9 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Spengler has just written another provocative article. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI08Ak01.html This is a reasonable argument. Religious motivation does seem to have taken a second fiddle role, after being replaced by secular ambition and politics. This is well demonstrated by Sistani's inability to influence the course of the war.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

Guess people are finally catching on that the average Iraqi, beyond lip service to whomever is in charge or whatever religous beliefs he confesses, is still in it for Family first and foremost. To break apart the sectarian violence in Iraq would require dissolving the average mans mindset of family at the expense of everyone else. Its the attitude that MY clan has to be calling the shots and MY clan that should be in control of the military/police/militia that illustrates Sistanis failure to achieve anything. 60% of the country may profess to revere him but at the end of the day, if what he says isnt in line with what your relatives want, your not gonna think twice about disregarding him.




Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

On the face of it the notion that Islam is in jeopardy seems absurd. Muqtada al-Sadr is a Shi'ite cleric of fanatic persuasion, close to and perhaps wholly owned by the fanatical mullahs of Tehran. But Islam is not defined by political allegiance, nor by a specific set of doctrines, but rather by a way of life. In the case of Islam it is the life of traditional society embedded in a circle of spears directed outward against the leveling empires. More than any man alive, Sistani personifies the traditional life of Islam. The end of his mission implies that his followers are thrust onto the stage of the modern world in the cruelest form, in this case a civil war of attrition. Islam, as Sistani teaches it, cannot survive the shock.

It is important to be clear that there is nothing at all religious about the present civil violence in Iraq. It is not 1572 in France or 1618 in Germany, in which both sides accuse the other of heresy and preach crusade to purify the true faith. The issues under contention have to do with caste and tribal privileges.

The Sunni insurgents stem largely from the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, who have no particular religious objection to the Iraqi Shi'ites.

is still in it for Family first and foremost.

what so anti-Islamic about that? and Sistani is a shiite.I hell don't know what he means by traditional Islam.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

nothing is wrong with wanting to improve your familys standing but if it comes at the expense of loyalty to your countrys laws and betterment, you got a serious problem on your hands, especially if the whole population is in to it.

do you think America could have survived as a nation if after the Revolution, Washington spent all his time trying to make Jefferson, Adams and Franklin look bad so the new citizens would only elect his kinfolk as heads of government?




Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

nope.Iac tually hate that kind of thing.experience a lot of that in our country.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
Emir Al-Azizwhat so anti-Islamic about that? and Sistani is a shiite.I hell don't know what he means by traditional Islam.

The point he is making that Sistani is being ignored. Islam has been pushed aside by Political ambition.

and Sistani is a shiite.I hell don't know what he means by traditional Islam.

How is this a contradiction? The Shiites are the majority, so I would think their brand of Islam has just as much a claim to being "traditional" as anyone else.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Shi'ites are the MINORITY. They are the LARGEST minority. The majority are us Sunnies, sunnies live allover the world, most of sunnies are in the united states, europe, and ofcourse Asia, and the middle east..Shi'ites are contained in Iraq and Iran, and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Palastine.

Sunnies would be considered the moderates, more peaceful, and traditional(no offense to any shi'ites on th eboard if any)

Anyhow, I honestly dont see a fall of Islam just yet..Maybe something bad might happen in the middle east, but I dont think that is going to affect the rest of Asia and America. Ecspecially with alot of people(muslims) like me that actually want to change the whole damned region, and change the picture of the typical muslim that has been disdained and spat upon.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

I think he was meaning that the Shiites are a majority in Iraq.

I think schools ought to teach more awareness about how much the Middle East, Arabs, and Islam, have contributed to what is now called "Western Culture".




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

There are those who would beg to differ on the more peaceful claim. Shiites are indeed restricted to a few places on the planet but Islamic militantcy is world wide. Most of the terror groups in the Mid east are Sunni derived, and if the rest of the worlds muslims arent shiite but sunni what does that say in places like indonesia malaysia, central asia the Indian subcontinent and everywhere else where religous based violence dominates?

This is of course what i was taught in my cultural shortsheet classes prior to deploying, it could be dead wrong and i apologize if it is. But the end result was that Shiite based violence tends to be very local to a few small areas in the middle east while sunni/wahabist(sp?) is global




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

No, I dont disagree with what you were taught..but right now the Shi'ites have no reason to be fighting. the Sunnies know they are going to be f***ed from the shi;ite majority in the government, thats on of thier reason fighting over there. But shi'ite generally do have the Martyrdom, gimme death kinda attitude(ecspecially the one with Hizbollah :P)

I think schools ought to teach more awareness about how much the Middle East, Arabs, and Islam, have contributed to what is now called "Western Culture".

I myself dont know how muslims, arabs, and islam have contributed to western culture :P all I do know is back then when the arabs were stupid, arab-muslim technology helped alot witht he enlightnment in europe. Now we need the visee versa over here in the middle east(well honestly we have it already, just get rid of the dictators)