| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| It's All About the Shia, Stupid! |
| 2005-12-22 |
| December 22, 2005: There are several wars going on in Iraq, and itâs important to keep them sorted out. The main battle is between Sunni Arabs (about 20 percent of the population), and the rest of the population (60 percent Shia Arabs, 20 percent Sunni Kurds and several other religious and ethnic minorities). The big battle is between Sunni and Shia, and has been for over a thousand years. While some 88 percent of the 1.3 billion Moslems on the planet are Sunni, about 11 percent are Shia. While most other Islamic sects just represent religious differences, many Shia believe they should be running the Islamic world, and that all Moslems should be Shia. The Sunnis disagree, often violently. What has kept the Shia cause alive all these centuries is the fact that some 90 percent of Iranians are Shia. Iran (also known as Persia, or Parthia), has been the major power in the region for over 2,000 years. The Parthians were the one group the Romans could not defeat. While Persia was overrun by the initial wave of Islamic conquest, the Iranians soon developed their own distinct form of Islam. They became Shia. So did many others in the region. Today, Bahrain and Azerbaijan are two-thirds Shia. Iraq is 60 percent Shia. There are many countries with a Shia minority. In Lebanon, the Shia are about 35 percent of the population. In Saudi Arabia, the ten percent of the population that are Shia are concentrated in the eastern part of the kingdom, where the oil is. There are many other Moslem nations with Shia minorities, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and India (where about ten percent of the 145 million Moslems are Shia.) While the Arabs take great pride in the fact that Islam originated, and spread, from Arabia, there has always been an uneasy feelings that the Iranians would one day take over. When the Arab Caliphate began falling apart a thousand years ago, Shia Iran became relatively stronger. But then a series of external events saved the Arabs from Iranian domination. The Mongols smashed the Iranians up real good. A few centuries later, as the Iranians recovered, the Turks moved in to protect the Arabs. When the Turkish empire fell apart a century ago, Europeans and Americans arrived to keep the Iranians from taking care of their "Arab problem". After World War II, all seemed well in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians were ruled by a monarchy, which recognized Arab control of Islamâs holy places in Saudi Arabia. Then, in the late 1970s, the Iranian monarchy was overthrown. The revolt was supported by the Shia clergy, which was always more politically active, and better organized, than the Sunni clergy. The Iranians were going to establish a democracy, but then Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran in 1980, hoping to grab some territory while the Iranians were disorganized from their revolution. That changed everything. The Iranians got organized, the Shia clergy took over and democracy got put on hold. Iran turned into a theocracy, run by the senior clergy. Worse yet, the clergy called for a world wide religious revolution. The world was to be converted to Islam, Shia Islam. But because 88 percent of Moslems are Sunni, the Iranian religious revolution didnât get very far. It wasnât for want of trying. The Iranian Shia sent money and guns to Shia revolutionaries all over the region. This caused some noise, and death, but never really gained much traction. The Sunnis fought back. The hard core Sunni clerics had always considered the Shia to be heretics, and this business of Shia religious revolution just made the Sunni fanatics madder. Even before the radical Shia clergy took over in Iran, radical Sunni clergy were preaching Islamic world conquest. That slowly grew, until it became al Qaeda, and other like-minded groups, in the 1990s. But it got worse. Even before the âIslamic Republic of Iranâ appeared in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia was funding religious schools all over the Islamic world, and encouraging the persecution of Shias. But once the Iranian theocracy got established, the Saudis, and other wealthy Sunni Arabs in the Persian Gulf, were funding Sunni radicalism, and encouraging anti-Shia violence. The Shia must not be allowed to spread their heretical teachings. This battle has largely been ignored in the West, but it has been going on for decades, and thousands die each year because of it. As bad as Saddam Hussein was, the Sunni world saw him as a their defender against Shia Iran. When Saddam fell, Sunnis, especially Sunni Arabs in the Persian Gulf, saw Iran taking over Iraq, because 60 percent of Iraqis are Sunni, and then taking over the Persian Gulf. While the West just saw Saddam as a nasty tyrant, the Sunni world saw him as someone who knew how to handle Shia scum. Again, this aspect of Saddamâs popularity in the Moslem world went largely unreported. But the Shia angle is key. A major component of al Qaedaâs attraction is its willingness to go after Shia. This is why Iran never provided much support for al Qaeda. That Iran provided any at all merely demonstrates how eager rabid Iranian religious radicals were to strike a blow at the unbelievers (the West). But most Iranians hate al Qaeda, and Sunni radicals in general. Again, it doesnât get reported much in the West, but in Iran, and Shia areas elsewhere, the latest terrorist attack against Shia anywhere, is always big news. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #8 Oh, no, no, no... I was being sarcastic about the unification of Islam, that would be like Catholics and Mormons merging I assume. The pope and John Smith... a deadly righteous combo. Gratzie though, I appreciate your comments. And will keep you abreast of any findings. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 15:53 |
| #7 Some big questions there EP. But a couple of points. 1. I wouldn't worry about Sunnis and Shiias merging into a single entity. It simply won't happen. What is happening is tactical cooperation on issues they agree on, like Israel, and against perceived common enemies. What we are seeing is an homogenizing of Sunni Islam and perhaps Shiia islam as well through the propagation and imposition of a standard doctrine. All established and dominant religions do this (to an extent); ref the history of the catholic church. The process is being driven by gobs of oil money 2. I am frequently surprised at how nationalistic Arabs are, given most of them live in made up countries of recent origin, like Iraq. However, I treat with scepticism statements about the relative importance of ethnicity, religion and nation in the ME. All three are important. 3, I think there are important differences between Shiia and Sunni Islam related to their origins and how they rose to the dominant positions they hold today. I suspect Shiia Islam is like catholicism say in 16th century Spain. Whereas Sunni Islam is more like a social movement, perhaps comparable to European protestantism of the 16C. I don't have a good handle on this and if you discover anything, I'd ask you feed it back to us. Otherwise, I have an interesting Darwinian analysis of religions that I really should write up. Its quite insightful. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-22 13:46 |
| #6 I shoulda put friends in quotes, lol. I might've been their friend, but of course they were actually only acquaintances in the reciprocation venue. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2005-12-22 12:51 |
| #5 I don't have scholarly resources I can offer, EP, sorry. I've read a lot of speculative stuff on this, as I'm sure you have. The only "new" thing I can toss in is that I did have 2 personal friends, Iraqis, one a Sunni and one a Shi'a, while in Saudi at Aramco. In conversations both had 3 issues they overlapped on that supports the position that Iran's influence is (was? that was circa 2003) much smaller than many might think. Re: the Iran / Iraq war, Saddam used the Shi'a in his forces in the fodder role as much as possible, for obvious reasons, and many Shi'a families have blood debts which they ascribe to the MMs, logic playing no part in this, of course. There is very strong antipathy between Arabs and Persians which dates back to the Dawn of Time. Then there's nationalism, which Saddam had propagandized heavily during his full reign - he wanted to become the modern Saladin, etc. I'll admit an aspect that does bother me about Iraqi / Iranian Shi'a - the "leaders" of SCIRI, et al, may have become "leaders" with $$$ assistance from the MMs. The MMs have meddled in everything else they can, from Tater to the IEDs, so this would not surprise me in the least. Question is, would people follow their "party" leader where their conflicting emotions and the tribal leader / clan / family (in whatever mix) wouldn't allow them to go, otherwise? I don't know the answer. What's happening today has never happened there, to these people, before, so it's impossible to guess from the outside. I'd say the Iraqi blogs may be the best bet to determine that, prior to events, anyway. Apologies for not being able to provide anything more definitive - I hope the points might be helpful in locating some, though. Good luck, bro. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-12-22 12:49 |
| #4 Let's pray they don't settle their differences anytime soon as a united Islam might be problematic for the western world. .com y phil et all, here on the Burg you and others have mentioned and/or concurred in the past your opinions/analyses regarding Iraqi nationalist hatred of Iran because of the Iran/Iraq war . I am seeking further understanding of this subject matter in my analysis of the influence of the Persian Ayatollas over SCIRI/Badr and the new Iraqi leadership. I have mentioned this subject several times before, but would like to ask you if you could point me to some resources I can use for research into this matter, scholarly if possible. While I understand that the attitude of the Iraqi Shiia population is something that is probably not quantifiable in scientific terms, as they were not polled until recently and probably not on this subject, I am interested in some sources for research. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-22 12:24 |
| #3 StrategyPage need to check their history. Iran didn't become predominantly Shiia until the 16th century under the Safavide dynasty. For almost thousand years prior, Iran was predominately Sunni. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-22 10:45 |
| #2 Shi'atsu! Brilliant! Sunnier may not be necessary, comes naturally in that region. Cuts down on equippment expenditures, in that case. ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2005-12-22 10:11 |
| #1 Heh. Yes, 'tis true. So, if we're in the blaming mood - and who isn't, especially within Islam and the MSM - we can blame Carter, er, I mean Bush, I guess. Y'know, I've been thinking about becoming a professional splitter and starting two new branches of Islam, Shi'atsu and Sunnier, but I've been busy. And I had a cold. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-12-22 09:59 |