Looming danger over Sunni-Shiite schism

Looming danger over Sunni-Shiite schism

A lot of talk has been going around lately that a Sunni-Shiite conflict is looming on the horizon that could engulf the whole Middle East with sectarian wars pitting Muslim nations against each other.

Many Arab diplomats in the Turkish capital, for example, express their uneasiness in private conversations that the schism between Sunnis and Shiites could turn into a major confrontation, throwing the region into unprecedented turmoil that might last for years to come.

It is true there are major differences between the two sects, and the schism has led to numerous conflicts in the past. Just recently, we have seen how damaging sectarian clashes have been in Iraq for the last eight years, costing hundred of thousands of lives according to various surveys that keep tabs on body counts. Nobody wants to imagine a doomsday scenario for a region-wide sectarian conflict that could throw the whole Middle East into chaos. I’m sure the idea of pitting the two major denominations of the Islamic faith against each other may appeal to some powers that want to keep energy-rich nations at bay and benefit from blood spilled over the whole region.

However, the tendency to see the recent unrest in the Arabian Peninsula through the prism of the Sunni-Shiite divide is a gross exaggeration, and one needs to be extra vigilant concerning the interpretation of grievances of people who have been under pressure for decades. It is the classic case of shifting the blame to others while the crux of the problem lies within.

How do we explain, for example, the situation in Bahrain, where both Sunni and Shiite joined in demonstrations? If we dig deeper, we would see the main reason for restless populations to rise up against regimes is the lack of democratic channels to express their legitimate demands. An absence of good governance, lack of transparency, a feeling of injustice and problems in exercising freedoms were at the heart of growing protest movements against the rulers of these regimes.

The fact that only 10 percent of Muslims in the world are Shiite, and some of the unrest has been taking place in traditionally Sunni Muslim countries with no sizable Shiite minority further indicates we are dealing with something far more pressing than a simple religious schism. For Sunni rulers to blame Iran as a meddler or to label Shiites in their home populations as disloyal groups does not pass as a convincing argument. One needs to look in the mirror to see one’s own reflection playing tricks and acting as the culprit rather than pointing a finger at others.

With the blessing of the Americans -- who apparently decided to back royal monarchs while taking the opposite stand on authoritarian rulers in North Africa -- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the two heavyweights in the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), led the assault on protesters in Bahrain to quash the growing unrest in the island kingdom. As expected, the intervention has infuriated Iran and raised the stakes dangerously high for the possibility of a crisis that escalates region-wide. This is not the first time an island became a source of contention between the GCC and Iran. The GCC has repeatedly called on Iran to give up occupation of three islands offshore from the UAE but has never resorted to armed intervention before.

Turkey, which enjoys cordial relations with both GCC countries and next-door neighbor Iran, is understandably on edge over deteriorating relations between the two sides. Turkish officials are privately advising both Iranians and Saudis to refrain from making harsh remarks publicly in order to not make things worse. Turkish diplomats were scrambling to contain the damage and shuttling back and forth to convince the players to act with self-restraint. While Ankara is telling the Iranians to use extra caution so as not to be seen as exploiting the opportunity presented by the unrest to make inroads into Sunni communities, it is also making clear to the GCC that the intervention should be temporary and that foreign troops need to be withdrawn from Bahrain immediately.

It is important to note that the remarks of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the Jeddah Economic Forum on Sunday should be read along these lines as well. He said Bahrain is for Bahrainis, Iraq is for Iraqis, Egypt for Egyptians and Tunisia for Tunisians. Regional ownership is more important to secure stability in countries, and for that, the ruling regimes should make their peace with people from all walks of life. Promoting one segment of society at the expense of another is detrimental to the sustainability of internal peace over the long run and may risk exposing countries to external manipulations and exploitations.

As for the Iranians, the advice for “caution” and “restraint” should be seriously taken into consideration. Look at what happened in Iraq when Iranians disregarded Turkish suggestions not to solely back Iraqi Shiites, with whom they enjoy close ties, lest they risk alienating Sunnis and Kurds. The money and religious influence employed by Iran have simply created a mess in Iraqi society and severely tainted the national fabric of different ethnic and religious groups while fueling anxiety in Sunni Arab states. Iran has committed a similar mistake in Lebanon by forcing Hezbollah’s hand to drop out of the coalition to topple the government. It is therefore fitting to call Iran “the usual suspect” in many developments in the region.

For the moment, it seems Turkey is the best candidate to talk some sense to both Iranians and Arabs in producing some kind of framework for understanding potentially explosive situations. We hope they listen to what Turkey can offer.

A good analysis

 

Iran is playing to lose...........

 

Iran is doing what his national interests require....

 

Looks like the Sunni-Shiite war is beginning...

Bombs kill 21 Shiite pilgrims in Iraq
‎December 5, 2011 - Five bomb attacks struck Shiite pilgrims Monday during an important religious ritual for the Muslim sect, killing 21 people and wounding nearly 100 others, revealing the enormous security challenges that still beset Iraq as the U.S. military leaves the country.

See also:

Carnage in Kabul sparks fear of sectarian strife
6 Dec.`11 – In Afghanistan's first major sectarian assault since the fall of the Taliban regime a decade ago, a suicide bomber slaughtered 56 Shiite worshippers and wounded more than 160 others Tuesday outside a Shiite shrine in the capital.

 

the only in your Saudis wet dreams , the Persians are so much smarter then you . according my and any other University experience

 

it started many years ago ....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEfMxC67ZeM"]Bahrain Shouting in the dark البحرين تصرخ في الظلام - YouTube[/ame]

 

+1

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2omNoKqUKo"]Persians and the Persian Empire Part 1of5 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Litwin.. the Saudis have no ambitions when it comes to Iran.. They don't want their oil or land or holy places.. they don't want to dominate them or convert the Shia..

In fact Saudi Arabia is building 500,000 new homes and many of those will be for their small Shia population in Al Hasa.

You are batting at shadows.. I don't care how smart they are.. They have themselves ina pickle..

The Iranians are IMPORTING 6 billion dollars a year in gasoline.. they are on gas rationing.. They need $48 billion investments to develop South Pars...

And the way things stand NO BODY is going to invest in Iran.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/220538-16-saudi-nuclear-reactors-cost-300-billion.html

 

Iran is a virus must be eliminated soon or later . and after that turn into another Yugoslavia .

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-bombings-20111207,0,4701392.story

 

That's an absurd thing to say about the Iranians.

 

Saudis propaganda as usual. they want political rights not your Go& demm houses ....

question - do you (Saudis ) gonna support sunni radicals again in A-stan , like you did before ?
"The Taliban, who overran most of Afghanistan in 1996, are a militia driven by an extremely harsh Medieval interpretation of Sunni Islam. Backed by Pakistan and funded by Saudi Arabia, they promised to put an end to the factional warfare that had claimed thousands of lives in the years following the defeat of the country's Soviet puppet government in 1991. The Taliban imposed an extremely repressive, sectarian Islamic regime on the Afghan people, barring women from work and education and even killing Shiite Muslims of the Hazari minority."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html#ixzz1ftxOdlhO

http://abna.co/data.asp?lang=3&Id=219439

 

The Taliban were war orphans from the war against the Soviets.. They are Deobandi Muslims.... they went overboard trying to restore law and order after the collapse of the Soviet installed government.. they did in fact take women off the streets, stop the rapes, and the hi-jackings and the production of Heroin.

What does that have to do with Saudi Arabia?

 

"The Taliban, who overran most of Afghanistan in 1996, are a militia driven by an extremely harsh Medieval interpretation of Sunni Islam. Backed by Pakistan and funded by Saudi Arabia"

 

what do you mean? by brining back this poor country to 17 century?

 

NO the Taliban are not funded by Saudi Arabia. the Taliban are Deobandi Muslims.

The US did fund them up until May of 2001.. but not the Saudis.

 

talibs used also Inan´s cart (under their massacre)

so whats about women out of the streets ?

 

The country descended into total lawlessness when the Soviet government collapsed.. Think of the KKK following the US Civil war.. There were no sheriffs, no judges ... no law enforcement of any kind.

The US was initially pleased with the Taliban because they didn bring some semblance of law and order. The streets were too dangerous for women.

You have to realize that the Afghanis were a literate people until 30 years of war caused the literacy rate to go down over 50%..

 

The Saudis funded the Mujahdeen for far longer than the USA did. In fact, the Taliban were recongized only two states prior to 9-11, and Saudi Arabia was one of them.

I would suggest, "The Wars of Afghanistan" by Peter Tomsen, which makes clear the over involvement of SA, and its refusal to reduce aid to these extremists before 9-11 and, even then, until the extremism began targeting the Saudis themselves.

 

Afghan government has never been Soviet .
"While in power in Afghanistan, the Taliban became notorious internationally for their treatment of women. Their stated aim was to create "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct,"[1] reportedly based on Pashtunwali beliefs about living in purdah.[2]

Women were forced to wear the burqa in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.[3] In a systematic segregation sometimes referred to as Gender apartheid, women were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.[4][5] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[6][7] The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Amnesty International reported that 80 percent of Afghan marriages were considered to be by force.[8"

lies?

 

1. The mujahdeen are NOT Taliban

2. Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with 9-11.. nor did the Taliban or the Mujahdeen.

3. Peter Tomsen never set foot in Saudi Arabia in his life.

 

Maybe you should do more reading.

Peter Tomsen not only set foot in Saudi Arabia, he was appointed to as teh Special Envoy to Afghanistan and worked very closely with all the regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, whom he met with routinely about reducing funding to terrorist organizations.

Hekmatyar recieved most of his funding directly through the ISI, which pooled the money coming from Saudi Arabia and the US and guided it toward the most extreme Islamic organizations in Afghanistan, claiming that religious zealots fight better.

Not only did zealots like Hekmatyar fail continuously (Hekmatyar never won a major engagement with the Soviets, failed to capture Kabul - the Taliban did not - and has won no major engagement against NATO), but this stands in sharp contrast with people like Masood - who had to scavange the battlefield for discarded equipment after their VICTORIES to stay viable.

In sharp contrast, Hekmatyar's ONLY battlefield successes are from murderering other mujahadeen after they have been worn down by fighting Soviets, etc.

Need more money for that guy.

Saudi Arabia continued to fund the Taliban and Hekmatyar right up until 9-11, and even shortly thereafter - right up until the threat came home. Only then did teh Grand Mufti issue instructions to the mosques to control the collection and distribution of funds through its charities.

Today, Pakistan continues to funnel resources to brutal agents like Haqqani and Hekmatyar, while the Quetta Shura remains untounched in the Pakistani City of Quetta - from which it derives its name. Whabbists from Saudi Arabia continue to funnel money to these groups as well, albiet in a more round about fashion as wealthy Gulf donors continue to send funds for 'schools' and such, almost all of which is diverted to the war effort.

 

Don't you see what's wrong with what you wrote? The "Grand Muft" in Arabia has no authority to issue such "instructions".. Do you see what is wrong with his claims about the Wahabbis and the schools?

When exactly was Tomsen in Arabia?

 

The council the Grand Mufti chairs most certainly does, as indeed teh state monitors and issues instructions for the mosques and their subject in Saudi Arabia, as church and state are most decidedly NOT separate are they?

They are the same, and one is responsible for the other - literally.

Saudi Arabian money has flowed into 'schools' in Northern Pakistan with little or no oversight, and the instructors were routinely flown back to Saudi Arabia to illicite even more funding - including Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Tomsen was in Saudi Arabia several times. Read the book.