| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Shi'ite-Shi'ite Jihad and Sunni-Sunni Jihad. "Bombing in southern Iraq kills governor," by Hamid Ahmed for the Associated Press:
BAGHDAD - A powerful roadside bomb on Saturday killed the governor and police chief of a southern province that has seen fierce internal fighting between Shiite factions, officials said.
The bomb struck a convoy carrying the Khalil Jalil Hamza, the governor of the Qadisiyah province, and the provincial police chief home from a funeral service for a tribal sheik at about 5 p.m., army Brig. Gen. Othman al-Farood said.
Hamza and the police chief, Maj. Gen. Khalid Hassan, were killed, along with their driver and a body guard who were in the same SUV, according to al-Farood, the commander of the Iraqi army division in charge of the area.
The attack occurred in the town of Aajaf, as the convoy was headed back to the provincial capital of Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad.
Diwaniyah has been the site of heavy clashes between U.S.-Iraqi security forces and Shiite militia fighters. The area also has seen a rise in internal rivalries between rival militia forces, including the Mahdi Army that is loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In Baghdad, militants bombed the house of a prominent anti-al-Qaida Sunni cleric, seriously wounding him and killing three of his relatives in what appeared to be an increased campaign against Sunnis who have turned against the terror network.
That attack, which was followed by a fierce firefight, came after Sheik Wathiq al-Obeidi called on residents in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah to rise up against foreign fighters, a reference to al-Qaida in Iraq, which recently has seen a surge in opposition from fellow Sunnis.
A Sunni insurgent umbrella group threatened the cleric on Tuesday, calling him a traitor and accusing him of working with the Anbar Salvation Council, an alliance of Sunni tribal leaders who are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq in the province of the same name west of Baghdad.
"The so-called Wathiq and his followers ... are a legitimate target for mujahedeen (holy warriors)," the statement said.
The concept of takfir, or excommunication, coupled with the mandate to kill unbelievers (Qur'an 9:5) leads to two internal consequences for Muslim communities: One is eternal instability, as tempers are conditioned to be short and explosive over disagreements. Additionally, the lack of separation of religion and state in Islamic teachings only adds fuel to the fire where political disagreements arise, demonstrated by both Shi'ites and Sunnis in this article.
In that atmosphere, the hazards of being branded a substandard believer, coupled with the military and material incentive for demonstrating religious devotion only further encourages as literal a following of texts and teachings as possible (see also: Gaza Strip). And thus, there arises a self-perpetuating cycle in that the solution to Islamically-charged instability is always more Islam (since the root of the problem is that the other party has it wrong), more sharia, and more jihad to make it happen.
Posted by Marisol at August 11, 2007 4:04 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
At some churches, you turn to the person on your left and say "God bless you"; then turn to the person on your right and say again, "God bless you." Islam is different: turn to the person on your right and throw a grenade; turn to the person on your left and fire your AK-47. One can hope this custom will catch on throughout Islam; the last Muslim standing can claim "I am the truest believer!"
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 11, 2007 5:09 PM
Okay, but how does all this insanity hurt our security? How does intramural squabbling among savages threaten us? Do we really need to keep up the babysitting operation over there?
All we have to do is take the oil fields so that that money doesn't fall into the hands of the jihadis.
at August 11, 2007 6:25 PM
I bid them a long and healthy war.
It makes our job easier.
at August 11, 2007 6:43 PM
i was doing some research on one of my anscestors, a Captain John W. Gunnison. You see he was murdered in 1853. the dispute on his death was were the mormons invovled? but the funny thing was that i found out that he wrote one of the first critical books on the MOrmons useing their texts and teaching. here is a quick except from a site about him:
While writing the report of the Expedition, Gunnison also wrote and published a small book (The Mormons or Latter-Day Saints) describing this religious movement. Gunnison wrote that the Mormons were excessively zealous for their own sense of divine mission, which they said was to restore the "true" form and content of Christianity and to reform the world in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He believed that their vigorous actions to fulfill this mission were the chief cause of the persecutions they had suffered in Missouri and Illinois. To escape further conflict and secure greater freedom in the practice of their religion, they had left the United States and set up their own "Zion of the Latter Days." Gunnison believed that persecution had strengthened the Mormon unity and obscured the internal weakness of the movement. They would not provoke further persecution if left alone in their isolated location. Soon their own excesses would produce internal divisions and more temperate beliefs and practices. Given time and freedom, these internal forces would modify their religion toward the mainstream of American values.
this is from: http://www.millardcounty.com/massacre.html
anyways i think this is relivent because like the mormons the followers of mohhamad are more likely to break down and begin infighting. unfortunatly i believe the strategy of leaving them alone will not work with our preseant enemy.
Posted by: 19thgenamerican at August 11, 2007 6:50 PM
What do Mormons have to do with this? Mormons aren't bent on killing those they deem less faithful in their church, and never have, Nor has there been infighting to speak of. If you are refering to splinter groups that separated themselves from the original vein of mormonism show me where there was infighting.
I'm a Mormon and I can't stand Islam. To try to compare the two is disgraceful on your part. I've never been taught to harm anyone because of different beliefs. We spread our beliefs peacefully, unlike Islam.
Glad to see you doing (researching) your geneology, 19thgenamerican......you make us mormons proud!
Posted by: DownWithIslam at August 11, 2007 7:34 PM
I was going to delete the comment about Mormons, but since there's been a constructive response, I'll leave it in this case.
And I agree. I don't see where the analogy there offers anything constructive with respect to defeating the jihadists except that infighting in any group is a source of weakness.... which is exactly why we should be cautious against alienating those with whom we can make common cause against the jihad.
Posted by: MarisolJW at August 11, 2007 7:47 PM
What a reaction!!! I did not see a direct comparison of Islam to Mormans, only the aspect of two groups having internal problems were compared.
I am surprised at some people who read a comment and get the wrong reaction.
Touchy aren't we?
Posted by: Pelayo at August 11, 2007 7:55 PM
Unlike the old (Mishnah?) quip "if you bring two Jews together you get three opinions", in Islam if you bring two Mohammedans together, you get three fatwas, three suicide bombers, three terrorist camps, and eternal war to the death between them.
There's something schizoid-making about the contents of the Koran.
(Or is that trizoid?)
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 11, 2007 8:02 PM
Let's say it was a very bad comparison, though I understand what 19th was trying to convey.
Perhaps later down the road, let's try something a little closer in comparability than this.
at August 11, 2007 8:21 PM
Pelayo:
I understood what he was trying to convey, but it sickens me that someone would try to relate internal strife of mormonism (or any other group) with Islam.
Mormons have been able to change when there has been a crisis in their midst; Islam, however, is destined to create and proliferate violence and misery.
I feel it was disingenuous of 19 to throw mormonism into this thread, and would have felt the same had it been any other religious sect as well.
Obviously, as a mormon, I was a little more passionate about his remarks. There are plenty of other sites he could have gotten on that bashes the Mormon faith; this one is about Islam and its Jihadi ambitions for all religions. It would be nice if we could just focus on that. :)
Posted by: DownWithIslam at August 11, 2007 8:46 PM
I don't agree with Mormonism at all, but the comparison to Islam is quite silly. Islam is such a violent, fascist mess there is nothing that can truly compare to it. On top of it Islam tries to hijack the prophets of two other older, more established religions [but Christianity says Jesus is much more than a mere prophet].
I would rather compare it to a flesh eating virus...that even consumes its own hosts.
Posted by: SoteriA at August 11, 2007 9:00 PM
OK, how about a comaparison with the now defunct Southwest Conference and its internal strife and ultimate break up?
I would make the comparison except for fear of offending fans and alumni of Arkansas, Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, and Texas Tech . Nowadays it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any comparison of anything without offending someone who wears their feelings on their shirtsleeves.
at August 11, 2007 9:05 PM
It is important to analyse and dissect how Mormans reconciled their internal differences and how Protestants and Catholics overcame their differences. From that, perhaps we can see that Sunni and Shia differences are much deeper and irreconcialable. However, I am going to abandon this thread because I have stepped on too many toes.
Posted by: Pelayo at August 11, 2007 9:16 PM
The problem with Iraq is that half the people have half of 'it' right, while the other half, have half of 'it' wrong. Everyone knows who is wrong, except the wrong, who think they are right. How can they have a decent civil war like that? To have a civil war, the fighters have to choose up sides. It is clear that in Iraq, neither the Sunnis nor the Shia, seem to know how to do that, so they attack themsleves as well as 'the other'. The 'other' is the half who has 'it' wrong. It's not a good thing to be wrong in Iraq, or right either. What we are watching is a case of Islamic self abuse on a large scale. Every muslim in Iraq is viewed as wrong by someone. Every muslim has a good chance of severe punishment from Allah, who 'dont play' the 'right/wrong game. Allah already knows which Abdallahs are going to his underground playhouse.
It wont be any Americans or Jews, it will be the 'wrong' muslims. Those who have 'it' wrong.
Which ones are those? Why the wrong ones of course. You mean Allah will torment the wrong muslims, and do nothing to the right ones?
Yep, thats about it, the wrong muslims are going to feel the wrath of Allah...they always have and they always will...
at August 11, 2007 9:55 PM
Pelayo:
Apples & oranges, apples & oranges...........
19 said: "anyways i think this is relivent because like the mormons the followers of mohhamad are more likely to break down and begin infighting. unfortunatly i believe the strategy of leaving them alone will not work with our preseant enemy."
19 insinuated that the mormon church somehow fell apart due to internal strife. The church has grown exponentially since leaving behind Missouri and polygamy, so his comparison was a farce to begin with. I questioned his motives because it doesn't apply here.
If he is implying the effects of mormonism in-fighting, if there even was infighting to begin with, then the outcome for Islam will be the same as the Mormon church--growing exponentially because of it.
Silly and cheap in my opinion.
You didn't step on my toes at all, but I will stand up to cheap shots that are unwarranted.
at August 11, 2007 10:14 PM
PS.
Others have made derogatory comments about mormons on this site and I was not offended by their opinions, but when someone tries to interject false statements as facts I draw the line and will respond; so dont confuse this as wearing emotions on a shirtsleeve.
I just want the truth to be told, that's all.
Posted by: DownWithIslam at August 11, 2007 10:23 PM
I just want the truth to be told, that's all.
Posted by: DownWithIslam
I dont think Mormanism has much in common with Mohammad, or Islam at all. And even if it did, we are not fighting Mormans, at least I am not. I dont see any Mormans blowing up pizza parlors and train stations. I bet no one can tell me the last time a Morman flew a plane into a building. No Morman has ever gone into a deadly rampage while shouting 'Joseph Smith Akbar'.
Thats the truth, and I just told it. We can all retire now...have a good night...
Posted by: duh_swami at August 12, 2007 12:07 AM
*sigh*
...at first I was going to blurt out "enough!", but it would prove pointless & perpetuate, unintentionally, this diversion from the topic.
Instead, after pausing to think about it, I decided to offer an alternative correlation for the earlier attempt at the same, as it proves FAR better, more accurate, and calms the restless waves before it becomes a screaming hurricane. So here ya go:
soviet communism (kinder, gentler, more subtle ruthlessness) vs. chinese communism (overt insurrectionary revolution 24/7/365)
The now-available history between the two, backed up by first-hand knowledge of those involved yields striking commonalities (some of which, would have triggered mass apocalyptic conflagration between each other).
`nuf sed
(crossed-fingers)
In the mean time,
I think I'm gonna go get a stiff drink before my head explodes...lol.
at August 12, 2007 12:45 AM
i never said that the mormom church broke down, only that gunnison stated that that could be a solution to the mormon problem(of the 1850's) the only conection that i wanted to point out that when a religous group is attacked that they tend to circle the wagons and if we let them alone they will assimilate to the host culture.. of course this will not be the same with islam which i mentioned before at the end of my thread.
and if anyone does not know of the mormon massacare of settlers then you need to educate yourself, not me educating you. so for me to mention the death of a member of my family is not a total analogy to mormons as being fascist death culture. but to deny their early teaching as totally peaceful is incorrect. did you read the link that i put up? i doubt it, in fact when the mormons sent a large group to settle califonia the leader of that group refused to send the tithes to brigham young, then he sent a death squad, and yes i mean deatn squad, to california to gather the tithes, but his men were slaughtered in the sierra mountians. so theres your infighting and killing.
as for the allagory heres the link, a radical religion poses a problem for a nation, then someone writes a book on what they say in their faith and then gives possible solutions to how to peacefully deal with them and then is murdered three years later. if one cannot see a possible paralell with the demonization of Spencer then they need to reconsider their objective thinking.
Posted by: 19thgenamerican at August 12, 2007 2:47 AM
also to think that mormons are chistians is an insult to all chritians. they are polytheist, they belive that they will be judged by both jesus and john smith and eloheem(sic). and if one dies a mormon they can eventualy be a god, thus polytheism.
this is a cartoon banned by their mormon church
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=raj9rl9c35
at August 12, 2007 2:51 AM
posted by downwithislam: I'm a Mormon and I can't stand Islam. To try to compare the two is disgraceful on your part. I've never been taught to harm anyone because of different beliefs. We spread our beliefs peacefully, unlike Islam.
and most of all this is a disgrace for JW, DOWNWITHISLAM, this very kneejerk reaction to any critizism of religion is what we are fighting against, or am I a mormonphope, or is it that we can admit that all faiths and peoples have flaws. and that perhaps through studing the past we can hope for a better future.
.
Posted by: 19thgenamerican at August 12, 2007 2:56 AM
and duh_swami ,most importantly the original post was not a comparison of modern mormonism, but the faith under Brigham young. instead of reading the surface of what i wrote look into the deeper context. and by the way i have many morman friends, in fact when my best friend was abmonished from the church for several years my family opened of doors and kitchen to him whenever he needed our aid.
agian objective thought is the key to our victory over islam
Posted by: 19thgenamerican at August 12, 2007 3:10 AM
Like I said before 19, there are plenty of anti-mormon websites out there you can visit, but this should not be one of them.
You show your true colors by linking a cartoon that sheds mormonism through a skewed lens. There are many errors contained in this stupid cartoon--it's no wonder the church banned it, it's full of distortions and innacuracies, kind of like your posts on this site. If you dont like moromonism fine, just dont spew your propoganda on this site.
Time to get over the mormon bashing, and back to the real enemy, Islam.
Posted by: DownWithIslam at August 12, 2007 12:09 PM
"Internal fighting among Shi'ites kills governor, Sunni infighting wounds cleric"
You have misspelt "Infernal".
Posted by: jsla at August 12, 2007 2:12 PM
19thgenamerican...I was directing my comments to DownwithIslam. Not you...but thats ok, a small mistake...have a good night.
Posted by: duh_swami at August 12, 2007 5:53 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)