posted January 06, 2007 03:33 AM              

Interesting read.

Btw I may not be around much for the next few days. I am quite sick and plan on taking a rest. If anyone had any questions for me remember to ask when I come back. The only ones that come to mind right now are BUD's qs re: Iraqi Sunni and Shiites and whether Palestine shud be a state or a minority right BUD?

posted January 06, 2007 08:32 PM              

Well to answer your sunni shia qs BUD I think that they def had their own problems pre 9/11 and Iraq war (sunnis and shiites have had problems since the death of Mohammad, even if they were under different names at that time as sects). Yes there were even battles but most of them were not too bloody (the muawiya one for instance, they brought out qurans on their heads and Alis army backed off). The shiites consider that one of the first battles of Sunni and Shias.

I have a hard time believing it was ever this bloody. There was always resentment between the two (in karachi, pak for instance, mosque violence is a normal regular routine every week someone or the other dies who is a sunni or shia because of the other side), but its not bloody chaos and civil war, and the casualties are still less than what Iraqi shias and sunnis have accumulated in this past year or so. Why? Because I think the US has *helped* in creating the chaos by doing, intentionally or unintentionally, a divide and rule. While Saddam was cruel with the Shias, America was happy at that time becoz the Shias were supported by Khomeini and if Saddam was putting them down and killing them, well that was just Iraq dealing with Iran-backed insurgents. Now that he was not watned, all those former qualities became crimes apparently. And even in Saddams day, it was a dictator wiping off civilians, not groups of civilians wiping each other out at every street corner and mosque (saddam was very clever in exactly what areas and villages to wipe out, evil but clever. lets at least give him THAT credit).

When the Muslims were kicked out of spain (and so were the Jews pre inquisition) it was basically the Sunni muslims who were kicked out and persecuted. Most of them fled to Cairo, where the Fatimid caliphate (shia) was established at the time. There was the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad, (sunni), which was too far away to help. The abbasids begged the fatimids (shia) to help out the persecuted sunni moors, but did the fatimids? No. because they were rival governments. Even in that case there was resentment and battles, but when Salahaddin came along, for instance, a few battles between sunni and shia (not at all bloody infact, but more diplomatic show of muscle--we are stronger than you so back off), led to all the muslims uniting against the Frank Crusaders and kicking them out of Jerusalem. Salahaddin was a Kurd, he diplomatically conquered the hearts and loyalties of sunni, shia, and kurd. So the resentment has never been BIG enough to not be overcome by a good ruler. It was never as bloody as this.

The real bloody wars in Islam have always been muslims against nonmuslims, or arabs against non arabs. Its never been sunni against Shia, until one of the former (arabs against non arabs, that is, Iraq vs Iran) came into the picture. Iwould say the reason for the bloody war was the arab/persian thing, (arabs and persians had a bloody war before that too, when Islam went to Iran), it was NOT becoz of Sunni/shia. That came into the picture later.

Now with the British colonialism in 1800s and US imperialism in the 21st century, Sunnis and Shias have been played against each other in practically every region and told they are different. One group is armed while the other is ignored, one is brought to power, while the other is massacred. The power is given by one of the western powers.

Clever, but dirty.

So far as the Palestine issue, well I think Palestine should be a state, not a minority in Israel, but that would never happen, because all the land they want is spread out over diff regions of the area, and Israel would never give up Jerusalem.

Yes I understand that with the nation of Palestine Israel would be free to attack. But most PAlestinians, and I also agree with this, dont see much of a difference between Israels current attitude (attacked Lebanese civilians, attacks Pali civilians whenever becoz they are 'all' shielding terrorists apparently so ANYONE is a fair target), and one if Palestine became a state, becuase in that scenario, well everyone would be a target too right? So whats the difference? At least Palestine would be recognized by the world and might be able to improve diplomatic relations to put pressure on the Israeli govt/US govt by other Govts.

posted January 08, 2007 11:17 PM            

quote:

---

Yes there were even battles but most of them were not too bloody (the muawiya one for instance, they brought out qurans on their heads and Alis army backed off).

---

Oh fascinating i didnt know that. I mean I have to agree that maybe the warfare was better and less bloody but i feel two things should be considered 1) those were the days of chivalry and strict war rules and 2) the weapons were less massive, less brutal and strictly limited to battles. Despite being able to attack towns and cities most of the fighting took place on the battlefield and wasnt as extensive.

quote:

---

Because I think the US has *helped* in creating the chaos by doing, intentionally or unintentionally, a divide and rule.

---

Yes but in my argument they did it by taking away the ruler that kept peace kinda like Tito in Yugoslavia's death paved way for Kosovo. But the tension was there since 1300s. Im certainly not saying America is right and i dont agree with the war but i dont think that America could be blamed for STARTING the conflict, merely allowing a conflict that was already there to start. Not that it makes anything better but its an important technicallity.

quote:

---

When the Muslims were kicked out of spain (and so were the Jews pre inquisition) it was basically the Sunni muslims who were kicked out and persecuted.

---

Yea i personally think Isabella was a deluted fool who forced her country into the dark ages while it could have been going through early renaissance...

quote:

---

Salahaddin was a Kurd, he diplomatically conquered the hearts and loyalties of sunni, shia, and kurd.

---

I utterly adore the man

quote:

---

Clever, but dirty.

---

Sad but true

quote:

---

So far as the Palestine issue, well I think Palestine should be a state, not a minority in Israel, but that would never happen, because all the land they want is spread out over diff regions of the area, and Israel would never give up Jerusalem.

---

I get an odd feeling it will whind up like Pakistan/Bangladesh and be two different states which may not after all be so bad. Dunno we shall see..the reason i ask (i think they should be a separate state) is because if they are in fact a separate nation they do not need the same rights/welfare help as the Israeli because its unheard of a country doing that. Its like U.S. paying welfare to Canada's poor or Mexico's. So when people say Palestinians are treated like second class citizens one shall assume thats only a problem if they are in fact citizens of said country if they are not thats a different story. If they were to declare themselves citizens of Israel they should be given equal rights as any other Israeli regardless of religion.

quote:

---

Yes I understand that with the nation of Palestine Israel would be free to attack. But most PAlestinians, and I also agree with this, dont see much of a difference between Israels current attitude (attacked Lebanese civilians, attacks Pali civilians whenever becoz they are 'all' shielding terrorists apparently so ANYONE is a fair target), and one if Palestine became a state, becuase in that scenario, well everyone would be a target too right? So whats the difference? At least Palestine would be recognized by the world and might be able to improve diplomatic relations to put pressure on the Israeli govt/US govt by other Govts.

---

I agree thanks for the reply

posted January 09, 2007 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

because if they are in fact a separate nation they do not need the same rights/welfare help as the Israeli because its unheard of a country doing that. Its like U.S. paying welfare to Canada's poor or Mexico's. So when people say Palestinians are treated like second class citizens one shall assume thats only a problem if they are in fact citizens of said country if they are not thats a different story.

---

posted January 09, 2007 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

Yeah, but here's the thing...is Palestine not under Israeli control?

---