Seems like no matter where I go these days -- a restaurant, the university, the cinema -- the debate and chatter is over Iraq. The major areas of argumentation are both legion and predictable:
- Should we leave immediately?
- Do we need to send in more troops?
- What was the real reason we went in the first place?
- How long are American forces going to have to stay there?
- Will there or won't there be a civil war?
On the last issue, I'm here to tell 'ya, the answer is not only a resounding "YES!" but an emphatic "IT STARTED THE DAY SADDAM WAS DEPOSED!!"
It both amazes and amuses that there is so much debate over whether or not Iraq will break out into a full-fledged civil war. By merely posing the question, it proves -- at least to me -- that those raising the issue are both politically myopic and historically astigmatic.
Those whose knowledge of civil war begins and ends with the American "War Between the States" as it is still referred to in the old South, must acknowledge that there are generally two well-defined sides to a civil conflict, both of which hold fast to a set of political, economic, or even moral beliefs. In America's case, of course, the simple version has it that the Northern states opposed slavery, while the states of the Deep South overwhelmingly favored retaining their "peculiar institution." Never mind that this is a rather simplistic, junior-high schoolish version of history; never mind that this war had as much to do with Federalism versus States' Rights as it did with slavery. That's a matter for another day and another venue. History does accurately record that the regional antagonism, which eventually led to the firing on Fort Sumter, had been simmering, smoldering and sparking for nearly a hundred years before the first shots were fired.
In the case of Iraq, the sides are just as distinct, though they certainly do not represent such clear-cut geographic regions. Their conflict isn't so much about ideology as it is about theology and religious history. And whereas the American Civil War's gestation was about a century, the civil war currently heating up [and likely to get much, much hotter] in Iraq, has been bubbling and boiling over for nearly 1,400 years.
"How's that?" you say. "1,400 years?" What in the name of God Almighty could keep people at each other's throats for 1,400 years?
Only one thing: religion.
In order to garner some understanding of what in the world's going on in post-Saddam Iraq, one must know something about Islam -- specifically, the schism betwixt Sunnis and Shiites. One should know at the outset that of the hundreds of millions of Moslems in the world, approximately 85% are Sunni, and 15% Shiite. And despite their relatively low numbers, Shiites form a majority in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. Please do remember that despite comprising somewhere between 60-65% of the population in Iraq [a clear majority] the Shiites were under the thumb of Saddam Hussein, his followers and homicidal henchmen -- all of whom were [and are] Sunnis. Talk about Apartheid!
Shiites and Sunnis. Sunnis and Shiites. Columnists, commentators, pundits and politicians blithely bandy about the terms as if everyone had taken a 101 course in Islamic history. The sad fact is that very few people know the difference between the sects. Heck, most people can't tell you the difference between Methodism and Presbyterianism! And although I am far, far from being an expert on Islam, the little chutzpadik imp that sits astride my left shoulder is urging me to give a brief [and hopefully comprehensible] tour of the terrain.
In order to better understand what in heaven's name is going on in Iraq in 2006 between the Sunnis and the Shiites, one must first go back in time . . . to the year 632 C.E. [that's A.D. to non-Jews].
The differences between the Sunni and Shiite sects are rooted in disagreements over the succession to the Prophet Muhammad, who departed this mortal coil in the year 632. The disagreement also extends to the nature of political leadership in the Muslim community. The historic and often lethal debate between Sunnis and Shiites originally centered on whether to award 
leadership to a qualified and pious individual who would lead by following the customs of the Prophet, or to preserve the leadership exclusively through the Prophet's bloodline. Its sort of like saying "We declare that only the most pious, the most learned, the most charitable can become Chief Rabbi; whereas you declare that the only qualification is being a son of the former Chief Rabbi."
Shortly after Mohammed's death, community leaders elected one Abu Bakr, a close companion of the Prophet to become the first Caliph [Arabic for "successor"]. Although a clear majority of Moslems accepted this decision, there were those who supported the candidacy of one Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was both Mohammed's cousin and son-in-law -- he being married to the Prophet's daughter, Fatima. Although obviously closely allied with Muhammad, there were those who sincerely believed that Ali lacked seniority within the Arabian tribal system and therefore bypassed as the immediate successor.
As one might expect, many of Ali's followers considered Abu Bakr and the two caliphs who succeeded him to be illegitimate interlopers. This faction firmly believed that the Prophet Muhammad himself had named Ali as his successor, and that the status quo -- i.e. the elevation of Abu Bakr -- was both a corruption and violation of the Divine order.
Those who supported Ali's ascendancy became known as Shi'a, a word stemming from the term shi'at Ali, namely, "supporters of Ali." There were many others who respected and accepted the legitimacy of his caliphate but opposed political succession based on mere genetics -- being one of the Prophet's blood relatives. This group, which constituted a vast majority of Muslims, came to be known as "Sunni," meaning "followers of [the Prophet's] customs -- sunna."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the schism began and, to a great extent, where it has remained ever since. Theologically, there are a few interesting differences between the two factions. Most deal with the nature and interpretation of Islamic law [shari'a]. There are no codified laws in either Sunni or Shiite Islam. Rather, there are sources for the interpretation of law, which both groups share. Generally speaking, Shiite legal interpretation, in contrast to that of the Sunnis, allows quite a bit more space for human reasoning.
Shiite religious practice centers around the remembrance of Ali's younger son [the ironically named Hussein], who was martyred near the town of Karbala in Iraq by Sunni forces in 680. Each year, his death is commemorated on the tenth day of the Islamic month of Muharram in a somber and sometimes violent ritualistic remembrance known as Ashura, which is marked among some Shiites by the ritual of self-flagellation.
Sunnis reject the Shiite belief that the imams [religious leaders who are blood relatives of the Prophet Muhammad]] are divinely inspired beings who should be revered. Sunni Muslims do not bestow upon human beings the exalted status given only to prophets in the Quran. By contrast, the Shiites' veneration of their imams [the most exalted of whom are called ayatollahs] approaches a level of infallibility that Sunnis find repugnant.
There are even subdivisions within the sects. Within Shiite Islam one finds:
- Twelvers: the most common form of Shiism; "twelvers" accept a line of twelve infallible imams descended from Ali.
- Ismali or Seveners: the second largest Shiite sect, which recognizes only the first seven imams.
- Zaydis: a minority sect that only recognizes the first five imams and,
- Alawite: predominantly found in Syria and Lebanon, they interpret the 5 Pillars -- duties -- of Islam as symbolic rather than applied and celebrate an eclectic group of Christian and Islamic holidays].
The Sunnis have one sectarian subdivision, called Wahhabi. The Wahhabi are arguably the most pervasive revivalist movement in the Islamic world. Unlike other Islamic sects, they tend to apply the Quran and Haddith [sayings of the Prophet and his companions] in a literal way. They occupy a position roughly equivalent to the ultra-orthodox haridim in Judaism. It should be noted that there is an extremely close relationship between the Saudi ruling family and the Wahhabi religious establishment. The most conservative interpretations of Wahhabi Islam view Shiites and other non-Wahhabi Muslims as dissident heretics.
So how in the world is it that these two groups [and their various sub groups] could be killing, fighting, and dying over something that happened nearly 1,400 years ago? Ah, there's the great distinction between Western and Eastern history. Some people live and plan for their collective future by giving the past a vote but not a veto; others take marching orders strictly from their collective past. Sunnis and Shiites have been going at it for hundreds and hundreds of years, as if the issues upon which they so violently disagree -- prophetic succession, legal interpretation -- occurred last Thursday. To be sure, the rise of secular ideologies in the first half of the 20th century -- Nationalism, Communism, Saddam's Baathism -- did manage to temporarily mute or deflect tensions between the sects. But as Bill Cosby once quipped about Novocain, "it doesn't cure pain; it merely postpones it."
Any realistic game plan or strategy for a post-Saddam Iraq -- or indeed for any further relations [or lack thereof] with Iran -- must begin with a solid, thoroughgoing understanding of the historic sectarian tensions that have shaped the Muslim world for more than a thousand years. To merely say "these people are crazy," or "they have no reverence for human life" misses the mark by miles and miles. Anyone who can get the recognized leaders of these two factions to sit down together and talk civilly, will no doubt merit the Nobel Peace Prize -- not to mention the undying gratitude of Allah, Muhammed and the Moslem in the street. But unless and until that happens, please remember: the most uncivil thing in the world is a civil war.
Kurt....
You are a great story teller.
Would the interpretive aspects of the Moslem's story be much different than those of the Jews?
But, you are correct....the entire reason for the incursion into Iraq might just be "oil."
So long as we are all aware of how big business runs the United States, we can conjecture till the cows come home.
Yes, I also believe Iraq is and has been involved in a civil war since our attempt at delivering "Democracy.". I'm not sure that during my tenure on this earth that I have seen many good examples in this country.
Yes, the whole situation is a terrible tragedy, as are all wars, but I suppose the human condition of prevailing egos will always be the rule.
Very depressing, but maybe we can effect some changes at election time.
Posted by: burris millstone | March 19, 2006 at 05:29 PM