![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
DIG DIRECTOR
Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author, most recently, of "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change" (Nation Books).
|
|||||||||||||||
Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot AmericaA Dig led by Scott Ritter(Page 2) Most respondents who have a basic understanding of Iraq will answer that Karbala is a city of significance to Iraq’s Shiite population. Baghdad is Iraq’s capital, with a mixed Sunni and Shiite population. If that is your answer, you fail. Karbala is a holy city for the Shiites. Its status as such is based on the fact that Hussein, a grandson of the prophet Muhammad and son of Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed outside Karbala in a battle between Hussein’s followers and forces loyal to Yazid, son of Muawiyah, the fifth caliph. The two sides were fighting over the line of succession when it came to leading the Muslim faithful after the death of Muhammad in the year 632. Abu Bakr, a close colleague of Muhammad but not a member of Muhammad’s biological family, was elected as the first caliph after the prophet’s death, an act that many Muslims believed broke faith with a necessity for the successor of Muhammad to be from his family. Abu Bakr’s death brought about a quick succession of caliphs, all of whom met untimely deaths and none of whom were from the family line of Muhammad. When Ali was elected as the fourth caliph, many Muslims believed that for the first time since the death of Muhammad the caliphate had been restored to one properly authorized in the eyes of God to lead the Muslim faith. In fact, upon Ali’s accession as caliph, one of his first acts was to seek to restore the Muslim faith to its puritanical origins, which Ali believed had been departed from by the merchant families closely allied with the third caliph, Othman. Ali’s efforts were bitterly resisted by merchant families in Damascus, which refused to recognize Ali as the caliph. The head of the Damascus rebels, Muawiyah, fought a bitter conflict with Ali, which weakened the caliphate and paved the way for Ali’s assassination. Upon Ali’s death, the caliphate was transferred to his elder son, Hassan, but when this succession was challenged by Muawiyah, Hassan relented, transferring the caliphate to Muawiyah with the caveat that once Muawiyah died, the caliphate would be returned to the lineage of the prophet Muhammad. When Muawiyah died, the caliphate passed to his son, Yazid. This succession was challenged by Hussein, Hassan’s brother and Ali’s younger son, who believed that the succession, as dictated by Hassan when he abdicated, should have gone to someone within the direct line of the prophet Muhammad, namely Hussein. Yazid’s treacherous attack on Hussein and his followers, occurring as it did during prayer time, set the stage for the split in the Muslim faith between the Shiat Ali (Shia, or followers of Ali) and the Ahl-i Sunnah (Sunni, or the people who follow in the custom of the prophet Muhammad). Both Shiite and Sunni view one another as deviants from the pure form of Islam as taught by Muhammad, and as such functioning as apostates deserving death. If you answered the quiz on Karbala in the above fashion, you would still be wrong. The split between Sunni and Shiite goes beyond simple hatred for one another. Not only did the religion split, but so too did the methodology of governance as well as the interrelationship between religion and politics. There was a final chance at achieving unity within the Muslim world. In the year 750, at the battle of Zab in Egypt, nearly the entire aristocracy formed from the lineage of Muawiyah was annihilated when the Damascus-based caliphate clashed with predominantly Shiite rebels. Jaffar, a Shiite spiritual leader and the great-grandson of Hussein, was supposed to be elevated to the caliphate, thereby uniting the Muslim world, but was instead murdered by Al-Mansur, who established the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. This final treachery created a permanent split between the Shiites and those who became known as Sunnis. The Shiite faithful embraced rule by imams, infallible leaders who provide guidance over spiritual and political affairs. According to the majority of Shiites, there are 12 imams, originating with Ali. The 12th imam, also named Muhammad, is believed by many Shiites to be the Mahdi, or savior, who went into hiding at God’s command and will return at the end of days to bring salvation to the faithful. With the passing of the 12th imam, matters of spiritual and political concerns were dealt with by religious scholars, or the ulema. These scholars are products of religious academies, known as “hawza.” In Iraq, the city of Najaf is home to the most important hawza, the Hawza Ilmiya. Each hawza produces religious scholars, or “marjas,” who interpret religion and provide guidance over social matters to those who rally around their particular teachings. The Najaf Hawza currently has four marjas, or grand ayatollahs, each of whom reigns supreme when it comes to matters of religion or state. The faithful look to their hawza for guidance in all they do, and the sermons given by the various marjas take on a significance little understood by those who aren’t born and bred into that society. To speak of creating a unified Iraqi state without factoring in the reality of the hawza and its competing marjas is tantamount to claiming one will seek to fly without factoring in the realities of lift and gravity. So if you answered the question concerning the city of Karbala with anything remotely resembling an insight into not only the schism that exists between the Sunni and the Shiite but also how the development of the practice of the Shiite faith has led to an absolute insinuation of religious dogma into every aspect of social and political life in a manner that operates independently of any so-called central state authority, you would get a passing grade, enabling you to move on to the next city covered by the pop quiz: Baghdad. Dig last updated on Mar. 23, 2007Advertisement
Elsewhere: .
CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By SocraticGadfly, March 27 at 11:47 am # Great in places but quasi-Shiite simplistic on religiousRitter’s article was interesting, especially the first page, which says what I’ve said for quite some time about Democrats. Of course, he didn’t say how he was voting. Beyond that, he himself greatly oversimplified the history of the Islamic Middle East. Multiple separate emirates had split off from the Abbasid Caliphate by two centuries after Muhammed’s death, including one run by a descendant of Ali on the south shore of the Caspian. Multiple independent Sunni caliphates were in existence by a century later. And, Christian, Christian Gnostic and non-Christian Gnostic groups had already had their influence on groups like the Alawite and Druze. In short, some of the martyrdom complex of Shi’as is overwrought. And, Shi’as have a story to tell, one that may not always match up with reality. Also, an explicit claim for the origin of Sufism from Sunni Islam is not unanimous, at the least, and highly controversial at the most, among experts. Some claim it goes back to Muhammad itself; others that it at least arose before the split between Shi’as and Sunnis became final. Yet others argue that Sufism was influenced by pre-Muslim Persian beliefs. Sufism in the Ottoman Empire probably developed from pre-conversion Turkish shamanism brought with them from Central Asia.
By Conservative Yankee, October 28, 2007 at 4:35 am # 109592 by Ernest Canning on 10/25 at 3:33 pm “CY, I don’t want to go back into it too deeply” Neither do I, the only difference we have is in the non-confirmable items. Personally, I believe Kennedy though he could control the situation, and personnel and learned in the last seconds of his life that he could not, and that they were not working for him and his administration! AND as I’ve mentioned before there’s enough dirt here to burry everyone! The population (if it survives) will learn the whole sordid truth in about 100 years. (jackie said 50 years after Carolyn’s death.
By Nils Cognizant, October 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm # Mr. Ritter is immersed in reality and historical trend. Why would anyone put up with such arrogance? Next thing you know, word will spread and the textbooks issued to schoolkids will begin reflecting an accurate account of past events. Of course, there are no truly past events. All previous decisions made by American leaders exert unending influence on the course of events. I think this is the thrust of Ritter’s argument: those willing to participate in forcing change will alter physically the layout of the planet near and long term. One argument for not invading Iran, aside from those already enumerated in this forum, is that invasions by the United States against other nations over our entire existence, have mostly been against helpless smaller nations. This is moral cowardice. Compound this with the reality of chicken hawks directing our foreign policy and you have the makings of a world in turmoil. Pointless turmoil. The kicker, if one is needed, is that this President has a subordinate trailing after him everywhere he goes toting the holy brief case, the one with the codes and buttons which will permit Mr. Bush to launch multiple nuclear attacks against the world’s cities. Since the military leadership and the Congress have not shown much interest in defending this nation’s Constitution, they can hardly be expected to defend the rest of the world.
By Conservative Yankee, October 25, 2007 at 11:31 am # I surely agree that Drugs were used as a political weapon by our government during Vietnam, The Reagan years, and through the Bush/Noriega connection. Guess what The Kennedy administration did it too… In Cuba, with the help of the Genovese family of New York, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana. The Kennedys gave the Genovese family a “look the other way” deal and in return the Genoveses were to make Castro nervous or better still… stiff! Drug wars, (like campaign finance reform) is a subject neither party wants to complete. Discuss it, rail about it, pretend to do something, then take the money for the next campaign
By ewastud, October 25, 2007 at 2:05 am # Interesting synopsis of history of that region of the world, Scott. However, it seems to overplay the schism between Shiite and Sunni, IMHO, as there are many marriages among the Iraqi people of Sunni and Shiite. Also, if everyone felt religious passions as strongly as implied in your account, it seems that there should be no sentiments for keeping the country united among its people. I don’t believe that to be the case, generally. Iraq has existed as a nation long enough for the people to have a unique identity of their own as a people separate from their religious upbringings and despite those inherent divisions.
By John Borowski, October 13, 2007 at 6:24 am # A commentator praises Ron Paul: 1 He has never voted to raise taxes – We have taxes and plenty of them. 2 He has never voted for an unbalanced budget – We have an unbalance budget bigger than you know. 3 He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. - Neither would criminals, psychotics, and six year old school children. 4 He has never voted to raise congressional pay –With the Congresses’ pay they will never be eligible for food stamps. 5 He has never taken a government–paid junket –The only place the Congress folks have not junketed to is Mars. 6 He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. - Bush has more power than Hitler ever dreamed of having. 7 He voted against the Patriot Act. - the Patriot is fully operational 8 He voted against regulating the Internet – Ask MoveOn web site and the British about this interdiction. 9 He voted against the Iraq war – Has this “Peace-nik” recently check the wooden boxes in Delaware? 10 He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program – Although I’m sure he is getting his share now or in the future. 11 He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the US treasury every year. – Does he write this off as a charitable contribution? Has he done this because all of these things are guaranteed to become a fact of life while he benefits from there unpopularity? Will the pope ever vote him in as a saint?
By Conservative Yankee, October 12, 2007 at 5:49 am # EC “Sure seems this specific episode warrants a Congressional investigation and wider coverage in the corporate media.” You were in Vietnam, so you must remember the scads of money (US greenbacks) available for dishonest work? Dad was in WW II and he says the same bundles of cash were used there to buy French support among the Vichy… he says he came across a bale of money in the fields near the Marne,he says he treated it with the same caution he normally reserved for land mines!
By Conservative Yankee, October 11, 2007 at 4:55 am # “How many semis were need to move $2.4 billion in $100 bills?” I heard it was done with C130 transports, and hauled away in boxcars.
By Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm # 105584 by Ernest Canning on 10/08 at 3:12 pm “The reasons stated...are...their intention to begin transferring all of their weapons grade plutonium to their Savannah River Site located in South Carolina,” Thank Lucius Mendel Rivers for this site. He begged the Feds for it when no other State would have it. That’s L. Mendel Rivers, (D) S.C.
By John Hanks, October 8, 2007 at 5:59 am # The cost of keeping these grafters and chiselers happy is a good mass transportation system to say the least. Israel has at least 200 nukes, and yet it helps our bums by buying M-60’s and turning them into Colonial tanks. It just goes on and on - just one big protection racket.
By Guido, October 7, 2007 at 11:14 pm # Mike, Other than profiteering, one of the functions of war is to replace equipment and armaments therefore making room for newer more sophisticated technology. The rate at which the USA churn out new weapons and equipment, virtually guarantees that older equipment has to be put to use. Selling it would not do as there is way too much of it and, anyway, governments that have the money to spend on armaments want newer stuff (i.e. Saudi and Israel) I suspect that one of the drivers of Mr. Sarkozy’s new aggressive policy is just that. France is the only European country to have a military worthy of the name and it’s now been many decades since they’ve had a serious engagement that would allow them to re-equip with more sophisticated weaponry and equipment. Sarkozy needs to do some spring cleaning. Wait till the Chinese and/or the Russians have to clean house too.
By John Hanks, October 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm # Supposedly the trillions went to Israel. It was sent there by the pentagon controller named Dov (somethingorother) as partial payment for Mossad participation in 911. It’s just amazing how all these clowns with dual citizenship managed to parley themselves into positions of power where they have a right to steal.
By Mike Clark Former Marine in Vietnam, October 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm # This is no problem as far as I am concerned in funding this war, but where has all the money gone. We keep sending money and weapons to Iraq, but then we here 150,00 AK47’s missing don’t know what happened to them. forgot to write the serial numbers down what kind of crap is that. We have US Companies that have Government contracts that they are abusing but not completing what they were paid for. The outright fraud and abuse is outrageous according to the Armed services Committee in Washington. They supposedly have aver 20,000 auditors at the defense department supposed to be watching out for this kind of abuse. That is my concern just like what happened in Vietnam when we left all that equipment there when we left. when I asked I was told don’t worry about it its just government money. I almost shot the son of a bitch and he was an officer. I am tired of all the abuse and no one is watching. Article after article of money missing and it is in the billions. Answer fron Congress just don’t worry about it. They just spend the taxpayers money like it is water they don’t care but the American people car and it needs to stop.
By John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm # Iraq was a huge money pit. (We always say we are bringing Democracy to the heathen). Leverage, oil, opium, weapons, graft, employement, etc. were the reasons behind this outrage. Iran is to pay Israel and Saudi Arabia for the help they provided with the 911 stunt.
By Guido, October 3, 2007 at 9:19 pm # Exactly. Anyone that has spent any time in the Middle East would have known that “Democracy” is a non starter around here just because tribalism, social dynamics and, lastly, religion preclude it. Therefore, the war was a sham from the word go. Add Your Comment |
|
||||||||||||||
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article