| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Askariyah bombing may throw monkey wrench into Iran's plans |
| 2006-02-27 |
| Spring is only a month away, and preparations for Nauroz (the Persian new year) are well under way. In Iran this year, however, Nauroz was due to come with a deadly dimension: the start of a new phase of a broad-based anti-US resistance movement stretching from Afghanistan to Jerusalem. Wednesday's attack on a revered shrine in Iraq could change all this. The presence in Iran of the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as members of the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan, is well known, as is the presence of other controversial figures related to the "war on terror", such as al-Qaeda members. Security contacts have told Asia Times Online that several al-Qaeda members have been moved from detention centers to safe houses run by Iranian intelligence near Tehran. The aim of these people in Iran is to establish a chain of anti-US resistance groups that will take the offensive before the West makes its expected move against Tehran. Iran has been referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program, which the US and others say is geared towards developing nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to present a final report to the Security Council next month, after which the council will consider imposing sanctions against Tehran. Many believe that the US is planning preemptive military action against Iran. With Wednesday's attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in Iraq, home to a revered Shi'ite shrine, the dynamics have changed overnight. Armed men detonated explosives inside the mosque, blowing off the domed roof of the building. Iraqi leaders are trying to contain the angry reaction of Shi'ites, amid rising fears that the country is on the brink of civil war. At least 20 Sunnis have been killed already in retaliatory attacks, and nearly 30 Sunni mosques have been attacked across the country. The potentially bloody polarization in the Shi'ite-Sunni world now threatens to unravel the links that have been established between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and radical Sunni groups from Afghanistan and elsewhere. Two of the 12 Shi'ite imams - Imam Ali al-Hadi, who died in AD 868, and his son, Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874 - are buried at the mosque. The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day. Nevertheless, the sanctity of the tombs is of equal importance to Sunnis. Like the tombs of the Prophet Mohammed, Imam Ali and Imam Hussain, no self-respecting Muslim, whether Shi'ite or Sunni, would ever think of attacking such a place. Further, the custodians of the shrine in Samarra have for many centuries been the descendants of Imam Naqi, called Naqvis, and they believe in Sunni Islam, as does the vast majority of the population of Samarra. The present custodian is Syed Riyadh al-Kilidar, whom this correspondent met before the US attacked Iraq. Riyadh was arrested by US troops after Iraq was invaded, but released after brief detention. The same is true of the Mosa Kazim Shrine in Baghdad, where the custodians have for many centuries been descendents of Imam Mosa Kazim. They are called Mosavis, and are Sunni Muslim. The previous custodian was Sayed Sabah bin Ibrahim al-Mosavi, whom this correspondent also met before the US invasion. He was a member of the Iraqi parliament during Saddam Hussein's era. After the US invasion he moved to Pakistan. Now the shrine is managed by Najaf Ashraf (al-Hoza). Both the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Mujahideen Shura Council - an alliance that includes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda-affiliated group - are suspected of perpetrating the attack. Both groups have insurgents operating in Samarra, and have claimed responsibility for attacks against US and Iraqi forces there in recent weeks. No group has claimed responsibility for the Samarra attack. Given that the sensibilities of both Shi'ites and Sunnis have been violated by the attack, the foreign factor in the Iraqi resistance could be curtailed. At the same time, escalating sectarian strife will hamper the national resistance movement in cities such as Basra in the south and Baghdad, which have strong Shi'ite populations. People in these areas could quickly turn against what is perceived as a largely Sunni-led resistance, with a strong al-Qaeda link. Leaders have scrambled to limit the damage. Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani immediately called for seven days of mourning following the attack, and urged Shi'ites to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations. The cleric, who rarely appears in public, could be seen on Iraqi state television in a meeting with other leading ayatollahs. Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who was in Lebanon as part of a regional tour, headed back to Iraq to join his supporters, who were already out in full force. Speaking to al-Jazeera television on Wednesday, Muqtada blamed all parties in the ongoing Iraq conflict for the attack. "It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of Imam al-Hadi ... but rather the occupation; the Takfiris [those who accuse other Muslims of being infidels], al-Nawasib [a derogatory reference to those who declare hostilities against others] ... and the Ba'athists," he said. "We should not attack Sunni mosques. I ordered the [Imam] al-Mehdi Army to protect the Shi'ite and Sunni shrines and to show a high sense of responsibility, something they actually did." The violence comes at a time that Iraqi leaders are trying to form a new coalition government that will bring Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds together. This process, like the resistance, is now also in jeopardy, as calls for separate, quasi-independent regions are bound to intensify. The anti-US resistance movement had wanted to use Shi'ite Iran as the final base to link the resistance groups of this whole region. If the current volatile situation results in Shi'ites sitting on one side, and Sunnis and al-Qaeda-linked groups on the other, this is unlikely to happen. Instead, Iraq could become a new battlefield, not only against US-led forces, but between different factions. Iran, meanwhile, would be left to deal with the West on its own. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #16 Seen one mahdi, you've seen 'em all. Dead. |
| Posted by: Inspector Clueso 2006-02-27 19:17 |
| #15 The 14th Mahdi (the Mahdi in the Attic) is the one to fear. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-27 16:51 |
| #14 islam is a death cult - even their "leaders" acknowledge they "worship" death. It needs to be banned because it IS a cult, and one that breeds contempt of organized, peaceful society. If there's no other way to contain it within the bounds of the Arab peninsula, it should be destroyed, beginning with Mecca, the moon-god headquarters. Islam is the expression of the anti-Christ. Read its precepts and compare them with Judaism - they're polar opposites. The destruction of Islam is the destruction of the forces of organized evil. All this "religion of peace" is horseapples - the religion of pieces is more apt. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-02-27 15:12 |
| #13 ...the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day. If the Mahdi comes out of his cellar and sees his shadow does that mean 6 more years of bloodshed? |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-02-27 14:34 |
| #12 peripheral comment on the 'hidden Mahdi' ... The myth of the hidden/sleeping great leader who will return is a powerful one in many cultures. King Arthur and 7 key knights are said to be sleeping beneath a certain lake in Wales and will return once again to protect Britain against the dark forces that threaten to overwhem her, as they did in the historic Arthur's time. Not saying I particularly appreciate Ahmadinajad's take on things - expecially the cultivation of chaos and death, just the opposite of the things that the great King stands for. Just noting that the idea isn't a unique or totally unattractive one for many people including some westerners who are quite clear it's mythical. I will not go near any parallels to the 2nd coming of Christ. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-27 12:45 |
| #11 I've judged I-slam and found it wanting. Time for a civilized religion. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-02-27 12:14 |
| #10 The potentially bloody polarization in the Shi'ite-Sunni world now threatens to unravel the links that have been established between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and radical Sunni groups from Afghanistan and elsewhere. The shrine bombing reeks of Zarqawi's handiwork. Civil war best suits al Qaeda's interests. Nice to see that Iran's sheltering of these scumbags has come back to bite them on the bum in a big way. Two of the 12 Shi'ite imams - Imam Ali al-Hadi, who died in AD 868, and his son, Imam Hasan al-Askari, who died in 874 - are buried at the mosque. The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day. And this celler is connected to that well over in Qom into which copies of the koran are being hefted. Makes perfect sense ... if you're Islamic. Nevertheless, the sanctity of the tombs is of equal importance to Sunnis. Like the tombs of the Prophet Mohammed, Imam Ali and Imam Hussain, no self-respecting Muslim, whether Shi'ite or Sunni, would ever think of attacking such a place. "[N]o self-respecting Muslim", sort of gets straight to the heart of it. When you "submit" to the absolute authority and whim of a theocratic hierarchy, you tend to abandon self-respect at the door. This promotes all sorts of outrages, not just on the infidels either, much to Islam's surprise. I tell ya, this religion begs to be outlawed in a modern, civil society. You know what, wxjames? I came to that same conclusion this weekend. The Vatican is on the right track by demanding reciprocity with respect to freedom of religious practice in Islamic dominated countries. I'll be submitting an opinion piece on this strategy in another day or so: Islam should be temporarily banned in all countries that practice freedom of religion until Islamic dominated countries grant freedom of religious practice in their countries. Until such a point, Islam must be recognized as an anti-religious political force, much like communism, and undergo legal prohibition. For a temporary period, every mosque in countries with freedom of religion should be shut down and closed to all public access. If, during that period (e.g., five years), Islamic countries cannot decide to grant freedom of religious practice within their borders, then all of the closed mosques should be demolished as symbols of religious oppression. I'm sure many of you are thinking this to be the utmost in hypocrisy. It is not. The time has come for Islam to be redefined as a political ideology and acted upon as such. Properly practiced religion has an underlaying foundation of tolerance for all humanity and especially those people of faith, be they of similar or different belief. Any putative belief system that seeks the destruction of all other faiths cannot, ipso facto, be a true religion and therefore must be removed from those societies that grant freedom of worship. It is time for Islam to pay the piper. The sooner we start, the less likely we are to reach the tipping point. If we do not give Islam a shot across the bow, it will only accelerate the process whereby the cost of coexisting with Muslims will far exceed the cost of exterminating them. The measures I suggest are meant to reform Islam, not obliterate it. Should Muslims be unable to renounce their intentions of global domination, it will prove their intolerance of religious freedom and pass sentence upon themselves. Should Islamic dominated countries refuse to grant freedom of worship, all countries with such freedom should ban any further practicing of the Muslim faith. Muslims should be encouraged to return to those countries which permit free worship of Allah. This would at least achieve containment. Should terrorist atrocities against the Kufir world continue, Muslims would be concentrated where collective retribution could be exercised cleanly and with clear demonstration of consequence to those who promote violent jihad. We in the West are already subject to collective punishment via atrocities committed by Islamist terrorists. I have now passed the point where there is any valid arguement against collective punishment of those countries which openly advocate violent jihad. Either Islam actively seeks to deter arrival at the tipping point or they shall only speed its occurence. Islam has yet to aggressively thin its ranks of violent jihadists. This only serves to lever the tipping point against themselves. The West is not obliged, in the least, to stop Islam from disqualifying itself from existence. It is up to Islam and Islam alone. If Muslims refuse to assertively counterbalance the way Islamist terrorism weighs against them, they invite their own destruction. The West, out of simple self-preservation, is forced to oblige Islam's death wish should they prove unable or unwilling to abandon their cult of martyrdom. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-27 11:16 |
| #9 Also the pilgrim biz is down a bit in Qom, I bet... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-02-27 10:58 |
| #8 Is this where the tradition of the ......"twelve iMan" came from ......?? |
| Posted by: Claviger Spoger9494 2006-02-27 10:35 |
| #7 I suspect this article may be on to something. Tater boy is nothing if not a stooge for Iran. Since the demo job, he has been frantically trying to make peace. Now, if I was of a suspicious character, it would almost seem that this mosque job very conveniently screwed up a major mischief campaign from Iran. And thus, efforts at peace would be an attempt to salvage their operation. Finally, damage to the mosque was both expertly orchestrated and essentially cosmetic. Hmmm. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-27 10:19 |
| #6 Doc, donuts to dollars that is the case. Whatever Iran leadership does, needs to be seen through the prism of their idea of hastening mahdi return. Strife and mayhem's good, in their view, and if they can pitch sunni vs shia, they would do whatever's necessary to make it happen. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-02-27 09:15 |
| #5 I'm thinking the 12th Imam emerged from the cellar wearing one of those turban bombs that you see in Viking cartoons and just popped his cork prematurely. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-02-27 08:54 |
| #4 Or perhaps, as others have suggested, the attack on the shrine was a carefully orchestrated strike by Iran. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-02-27 08:03 |
| #3 The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day. Voo-Doo ! I tell ya, this religion begs to be outlawed in a modern, civil society. When will the masses awaken ? When we have daytime shows like "Beheading for Dollars" ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-02-27 07:46 |
| #2 I ordered the [Imam] al-Mehdi Army to protect the Shi'ite and Sunni shrines and to show a high sense of responsibility, something they actually did." You surprised they actually did something you 'ordered', Tater, or that they did something useful? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-27 07:18 |
| #1 "The complex also contains the shrine of the 12th imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, who is said to have gone into hiding through a cellar in the complex in 878, and is expected to return on Judgment Day." Oh, no wonder it is taking 1128 years to find the 12th imam. He is hiding in or around the cellar. Who would think to look there? |
| Posted by: Ol Dirty American 2006-02-27 06:36 |