![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
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 3) It is not only the Shiites who are bound by religious ties seemingly indecipherable to the West. From the chaos that was created with the Islamic schism came a very fluid situation in the development of Sunni Islamic dogma, with the Sunnis embracing a notion of consensus among the historical Muslim community, a line of thinking that led to the creation of four so-called legal schools of Islamic thought (the Maliki, the Hannafi, the Hanbali and the Shafi’i). These schools produced Islamic scholars who in turn competed for a constituency of followers. While in theory Sunni scholars preached adherence to the customs of the prophet Muhammad, in practice the Sunni schools became intertwined in the affairs of state and business. This deviation from the pure practice of faith led to the growth of “mystic societies” known as Sufism. Sufi brotherhoods sprang up throughout the Muslim world, each preaching its own mystical path toward achieving personal growth through the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. The Abbasid caliphate, which oversaw this period of religious “softening,” in which the pure practice of Islam gave way to a more secular tolerance of the baser concerns of man, was centered in Baghdad. It was the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258 that signaled not only the end of the Abbasid caliph’s rule but the certification in the eyes of some Sunni faithful that Abbasid’s ruin was brought about by the lack of pure faith in Islam by those professing to be Muslim. One of the basic tenants of the Sunni faith was the notion of community consensus, or “taqlid.” Taqlid was actively practiced by three of the four “legal” schools of Sunni thought. The sole exception was the school of the Hanbali, which followed a stricter interpretation of the faith. A Hanbali religious jurist, Ibn Taymiya, rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. He held not only that the Mongols were an enemy of Islam but that the Shiite Islamic state that emerged in Persia after the Mongol conquest was likewise anathema. More important, Ibn Taymiya broke ranks with the rest of the Sunni community, especially those who practiced Sufism, declaring all to be an affront to God. Ibn Taymiya rejected the notion of community consensus represented in the taqlid and instead professed that a true Muslim state could exist only where the political leader governed as a partner with the religious leader, and was subordinated to the religious through strict adherence to the “sharia,” or religious law. The Muslim jurists, or “ulema,” held total sway over society, to the extent that even matters pertaining to war were reserved for the religious leader, or imam, who was the only person authorized to declare a jihad. During the Abbysid caliph, the term jihad had taken on the connotation of inner struggle. This interpretation gained wide acceptance with the spread of the Sufi brotherhoods, which were all about inner discovery. Ibn Taymiya rejected this notion of jihad, instead proclaiming that true jihad involved a relentless struggle against the enemies of Islam. For a while his teachings were popular, especially when they were being used to encourage the forces of Sunni Islam confronting the infidel Mongol invaders. However, his strict interpretation of Hanbali tenets were rejected even by other Hanbali religious scholars, and Ibn Taymiya himself was branded a heretic. The teachings of Ibn Taymiya continued to be taught in certain Hanbali circles, including those operating in the holy city of Medina. It was here, in the 18th century, that a Arab Bedouin from the Nejd desert, in what is today Saudi Arabia, named Muhammed al-Wahhab emerged to create a movement that not only embraced the teachings of Ibn Taymiya but took them even further, preaching a virulent form of Islam that claimed to seek to bring the faithful back to the religion as practiced by the prophet Muhammad himself. Wahhab’s movement, known as the Call to Unity, reflected his strict interpretation of Islam as set forth in his book Kitab al-Tawhid, or the Book of Unity. At first Wahhab was rejected by the Sunni scholars, and he was hounded and finally forced to take refuge in the tiny village of Dariya. There Wahhab befriended the local governor, Muhammed Ibn Saud, initiating what was to become a partnership in which the Saud family took on the role of emir, or political leader, while Wahhab became imam, or religious leader. The team of Bedouin warrior and Islamic fanatic soon led to what would become known as the Wahhabi conquest, bringing much of what is now present-day Saudi Arabia under their strict religious rule. In 1802 a Wahhabi army attacked Karbala and sacked the sacred Shiite shrine to Hussein. In 1803 the Wahhabis sacked Mecca, laying waste to the most holy sites in the Islamic world, including the Great Mosque. In 1804 the Wahhabis captured Medina, looted the tomb of the prophet Muhammad and shut off the hajj, or pilgrimage, to all non-Wahhabis. The rise of the Wahhabi empire was seen as a threat to all Islam, and soon a massive counterattack was mounted by the caliphate in Egypt. By 1818 the Wahhabis had been destroyed in battle, and everyone professing Wahhabism was treated as an apostate and butchered. The head of the Saud tribe was captured and beheaded, along with many of his fellow tribesmen. Deep in the Arab deserts, a small number of Saudi tribesmen, strict adherents to Wahhabism, survived the Egyptian onslaught and began the struggle to regain their lost power. By 1924 the Wahhabis once again controlled Mecca and Medina, and by 1932 a new nation, Saudi Arabia, emerged from the Arabian deserts, governed by the house of Saud and with religious affairs totally in the hands of the Wahhabis. 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