Iraqis Turn Battle
Against Daesh into Sunni-Shiite War (Kitabat, Iraq)
"One
speaker summarized the war against Daesh as being
between the camp of Ali on the one hand [Shiites] and the
camp of Muawiyah on the other [Sunnis] - may Allah bless them both. Undoubtedly
in historical terms and as is obvious to all Muslims, the Prophet Ali was the
rightful party, as the text of the Quran confirms. But that is history now. In giving
the atmosphere a sectarian dimension and seeking to stoke the passions of
followers, this speaker either forgot or pretended to forget that a broad international
coalition led by the 'Great Satan' is also fighting the terrorist organization Daesh. Where would he
place this coalition - with whose descendants?!"
The deliberate summoning up of a distorted history and
projecting it onto current events is meant to spark interreligious flames, conferring
a symbolic significance on the present confrontation [with Daesh/aka
ISIL]. It is an attempt to set the facts within a historical
context for the purpose of implicating people in one of the two sectarian camps,
thereby fueling confrontation between them. It is strange, however, that the very
advocates of such propositions reject the sectarian label or the narrative of
sectarianism. Furthermore, the mere objection to such calls is said to put the accuser in
the opposite sectarian camp.
It’s about time to recall the definition of sectarianism, which
is prohibited under the Iraqi Constitution, so no one is able to label people on
a whim and place them in one camp or the other.
In light of the sensitive nature of the current situation, the government
should discourage such rhetoric, which divides rather than unites, and without
exception hold accountable anyone who uses it in order to protect our nation
from the specter of sectarian war and unite the people against a common enemy.
But how can we demand that the government heed this danger
when our former president himself [Nouri al-Maliki] embraced sectarianism and
characterized every confrontation with his opponents on that basis rather than
on right and wrong. By doing so, he probably intended to win the support of
average voters by enflaming their passions and emotions on the basis of their religious
community rather than by fulfilling his electoral commitments, which turned out
to be nothing but vague promises.
While electoral considerations may be the chief motivator of
this type of rhetoric, subsequent events like mass protests, violent
confrontations and indiscriminate arrests and bombings show that there is more
to it than electoral propaganda. All of these have targeted one component of
society [Sunnis] in a manner that undermines the concept put forward by both
camps of citizenship and the brotherhood of a unified nation – and even of one
religion.
Today, one public speaker who didn't appear to be a
politician or someone preparing for the election four long years
from now engaged in such discourse. The speaker summarized the war against Daesh as being between the camp of
Ali on the one hand [Shiites] and
the camp of Muawiyah on
the other [Sunnis] - may Allah bless them both. Undoubtedly in historical terms
and as is obvious to all Muslims, the Prophet Ali was the rightful party, as
the text of the Quran confirms. But that is history now. In giving the
atmosphere a sectarian dimension and seeking to stoke the passions of followers,
this speaker either forgot or pretended to forget that a broad international
coalition led by the "Great Satan" is also fighting the terrorist organization
Daesh. Where would he place
this coalition - with whose descendants?!
[Editor's Note: The dawn of the Sunni-Shiite divide dates from what Muslims call the First Fitna, a civil war that began with the Battle of Jamal (the Battle of the Camel) in 656 AD. Caliph Uthman had been assasinated, and Ali had been named Caliph. Reportedly angered at the unavenged death of Uthman and the naming as caliph of Ali - who either refused of simply failed to find Uthman's killers, the Prophet Muhhamad's fourth wife Aisha, and Talhah and az-Zubayr, who were companions of the Prophet, gathered supporters in Basra and took up arms against supporters of Ali, which is said to have been the first time Muslims had taken up arms aganist each other.]
What we mean to say is that Sunnis and Shiites alike,
as well as all other components of Iraqi society, are united against Daesh. The Sunni tribes, which succeeded in expelling al-Qaeda
before, will do the same to Daesh today. So why do we
hear a tone that seeks to sow the seeds of division among the peoples of the
nation when unity and cohesion are most needed? Why insult religious and
historical symbols that are revered by the entire Islamic nation - which
exceeds 1.5 billion people?
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Anyone who takes to the rostrum, wherever it is, must think
of Iraq as the homeland of all Iraqis, not just a single sect. He must respect all
and attack none of its symbols with notions that endanger national unity, and respect
the freedom of others. This is what the government should impose on everyone,
and hold accountable anyone who incites sectarian war.
