Congressman John Murtha knows as much about the Shia and the Sunni as he does about Abelard and Hugh of Saint Victor. Which is to say, not a lot. So when he routinely charges that there's a religious war going on in Iraq, and the Shia and the Sunni have been fighting for centuries, a little checking is warranted.
Ask youself this question: can you name two previous wars that have been fought between the Shia and the Sunni? I didn't think so. Neither can I. Because there aren't any. The Shia and the Sunni have not been fighting for centuries. Historically speaking, they have not been fighting at all.
Let's not look at these guys through the lens of the Catholic-Protestant wars. Christianity is a religion of creed or belief. That's why even small differences in belief were sufficient to cause major conflicts. Islam, by contrast, is a religion of law. There are no substantial doctrinal divisions between the Shia and the Sunni. They agree on the major precepts of Islam. The main distinction concerns lineage: the Shia and Sunni disagree about the line of legitimate succession, i.e. about the Islamic family tree. The two groups clashed at Karbala about 1,300 years ago but they haven't done a lot of fighting since.
Islamic radicalism has come out of both camps. Iran is Shia and so is Hezbollah. Al Qaeda is largely Sunni and so are the insurgents in Iraq. Less than two decades ago, the Shia and the Sunni were fighting side by side, and shoulder to shoulder, in Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out.
Yes, the Shia and the Sunni are fighting in Iraq, but it has nothing to do with religion. One group, which happens to be Saddam's group, used to be in and ruling the country for a quarter century. That group is now out, courtesy of America, and the majority group is now in power. So the Sunni insurgents are trying to restore the way things used to be. And the Shia are fighting back in order to hold onto their legitimate current rule in Baghdad. In this fight the Shia are right and ought to win. With American help they can win.
The fight in Iraq will end, one way or another. Will it end with a reestablishment of Sunni rule, this time with Al Qaeda's help, and just as anti-American as Saddam ever was? Or will we see an enduring, popularly-supported, pro-American Shia government in Iraq? A lot is riding on what America does over the next year and a half. But don't ask Congressman Murtha. He still hasn't figured out what happened at Karbala.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Mr. D'Souza says, "Christianity is a religion of creed or belief. That's why even small differences in belief were sufficient to cause major conflicts."
But there are many instances of D'Souza claiming that sectarian Christian conflicts and other religious conflicts were, in fact, no such thing.
In one instance, Mr. D'Souza said, "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans..."
He says here that Israel, a religious state, imposed the people of Palestine is not in conflict because this religious state was imposed on the people of Palestine.
Ethnic rivalry is blamed for the conflict in Ireland although it is obvious that the majority population in Northern Ireland are simply Protestants who wish to governed by a secular British government rather than the Catholic government in Eire.
Even if DD were right about the Balkans, which I can only reasonably assume that he is not, that would still be only one out of three.
Mr. D'Souza lives in his opinion-based world and you are welcome to believe his opinion... but it still does not change reality, because it can't.
Not only that Mr. D'Souza's opinion seems to be subject to change at his whim.
pboyfloyd at 3:32PM on May 25th 2007
2. Hey Dinesh,
What about the Iran and Iraq war from 1980 to 1988? Saddam's Saudi-backed Sunni army vs. the central Shia regime in Iran.
A word to the wise Dinesh, write less books and read more of them.
awake at 4:01PM on May 25th 2007
3. Mr. D'Souza goes on to say, "Or will we see an enduring, popularly-supported, pro-American Shia government in Iraq?"
This is clearly a false dichotomy. In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.
What about a Shi'ite government in Iraq that is like the Shi'ite government in Iran? Is that not the most likely outcome? Is that not the most obvious outcome.
This is not to say that the Iraqi and Iranian govts. would 'like' each other, they might simply both feel that America is the Great Satan.
pboyfloyd at 3:57PM on May 25th 2007
4. Mr D’Souza,
How can you be so stupid and idiot? Oh man, nobody can beat you in timidity!
Just consider the following from JihadWatch
754: Plans to enthrone the Shi'ite Jafar As-Siddiq as caliph, thus ending the schism, were disrupted when Jafar was murdered by the Sunni Al-Mansur, who himself became caliph.
972: Shi'ite Fatimids conquer Sunni Egypt, and continue fighting Sunnis until they rule much of North Africa and the Middle East.
1040s: Sunni Zirid revolt in North Africa against Shi'ite rule.
1169: The Sunnis Nuraddin and Saladin seize Egypt, ending Shi'ite Fatimid rule.
Early 1500's: Shi'ites take control of Persia, violently suppressing Sunni ulama.
1514: War between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi'ite Persian Safavids.
1623: More war between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi'ite Persian Safavids. This conflict was centered in Iraq. The Safavids captured Baghdad in 1624; the Ottomans recaptured it in 1638.
And here's one you're old enough to remember, Mr. D'Souza:
1980-1988: Saddam Hussein's Sunni-controlled Iraq fights a protracted war against the Iranian Shi'ite mullahocracy.
And right now, today, far from Iraq:
Yemen Declares Jihad on Yemeni Shiites
deva at 4:43PM on May 25th 2007
5. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that somebody who knows so little about history, current affairs, or the subject on which he writes, so many forums on which to bleet and can have his books published and distributed to a mass audience? I makes one imagine a variety of conspiracy theories -- as there are few other alternatives. Is D'Souza in the pay of some Saudi prince? A rich Irainian mullah? It seems impossible to make any sense of his books or commentary otherwise -- so divorced from reality as it is. Dinesh D'Souza, if you are not a paid dupe, you are one of the most foolish and ill-informed of writers.
Indeed, how many bloodbaths have the two major sects of Islam fought over the years? Why not go over to the website which is forming the truth-based and fact-based honest view of Islam in the 21st Century to find out? At Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer lays out a long list of these conflicts, and puts them in context with current events. All facts, all truth, all reality. He has responded to your nonsense column. Why don't you respond to his truth?
Indeed, D'Souza, how many of your fellow Indians (Hindus) died under Islamic rule? what is that number? 20 million? 30 million? No matter whose figures one goes by, the largest genocide in the history of the planet.
And, by the way, time to lose the old "mousquito in a nudest colony" joke you use at every talk. What a loser.
Abraham_Lincoln at 4:36PM on May 25th 2007
6. There is a substantial list of armed conflicts between Shia and Sunni, going back to the mid-8th century, listed at this page:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016622.php
The history does not seem to be as tidy as Dr. D'Souza believes.
Samuel Conner at 4:41PM on May 25th 2007
7. Mr. Dinesh D'Souza
You might want to review this list of non-wars.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/
getreal at 5:10PM on May 25th 2007
8. Ottomans (sunni) and Persians (shia) faught...
(1) 1499-1508
(2) 1514-1516
(3) 1526-1555
(4) 1577-1590
(5) 1602-1612
(6) 1616-1618
(7) 1623-1638
(8) 1722-1727
(9) 1730-1736
(10) 1743-1747
(11) 1776-1779
(12) 1806-1812
(13) 1821-1822
Ian Jones at 7:25PM on May 25th 2007
9. "Congressman John Murtha knows as much about the Shia and the Sunni as he does about Abelard and Hugh of Saint Victor. Which is to say, not a lot. So when he routinely charges that there's a religious war going on in Iraq, and the Shia and the Sunni have been fighting for centuries, a little checking is warranted."
Go figure Murtha is right for once...
Maybe he is not as brain dead as I thought.
Ian Jones at 7:25PM on May 25th 2007
10. I just have to add my voice to the many here so far who have answered your ridiculous question and found you severely wanting. Why don't you look at the Jihadwatch list and actually issue an apology for your woeful ignorance.
P.S. I noticed your emails stopped when I pointed out that jihadists hate every non-Muslim regardless of morality, which makes your book pointless. No answer for that one, huh Dinesh?
David at 9:11PM on May 25th 2007
11. I typically agree with D'Souza, but he is wrong on this one. But what about those that say that these wars were fought over political reasons and not religious doctrine? I do agree that that Iraq's Sunnis are angry about being ousted from power and not necessarily because the the Shia practice a different form of Islam. Kurds are Sunnis and they are not slaughtering the Shia. Al-Sadr has successfully courted Sunnis in Iraq's parliament. Many Iraqi arab tribes have both Shia and Sunni members. I don't think religous doctrine is the only issue here.
Doug Duncan at 1:16AM on May 26th 2007
12. Here is a comment from Jihad Watch:
That D'Souza, who comes from India, is not aware of the rift between Shias and Sunnis despite the almost daily occurrence of violence between the two groups within the Indian subcontinent just goes to show how totally unread and clueless he is. In the past two decades (and long before the Iraq war) it is estimated that more than 4,000 people have been killed in Pakistan alone due to the clashes between these two communities.
In India, there are many cases of Sunni-Shia violence. And some issues have gone to the court. A notorious case was the one where some Sunnis foricbly occupied part of a burial ground that belongs to the Shias. Despite court orders that they have to be relocated, the governments dare not enforce it, because the Sunnis are in a majority in India, and they have always threatened violence if the graves are relocated.
Namaste.
Ashok Chowgule, Goa, India
Ashok Chowgule at 1:38AM on May 26th 2007
13. Mr D'Souza
You are absolutely clueless about Islam. I have just read your latest book and am flabbergasted. Firstly for context, I am a Muslim, albeit a secular one, but one who believes in its central tenets. There have been numerous Sunnia v Shi'a conflicts throughout history. Robert Spencer has showed you up... yet again.
Mr D'Souza you are becoming increasingly irrelevant in this debate. You lack credibility and others like Mr Spencer have shown that your arguments, often, arent based in any historical knowledge or understanding of Islam.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Haidon
Thomas Haidon at 1:59AM on May 26th 2007
14.
Well it looks like Spencer already tore you a new one but I'll bite too. I can't help but wonder how you can profess to be an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, because you could fill all the books on tape your heart could ever desire with what you don't know about it.
Hezbollah is a Shi'a extremist group with an anti-American/Israeli agenda. Al Qaeda is a Sunni extremist group with an anti-Amercan/Israeli agenda. So tell me Dinesh, why do they regard each other as enemies, if their political end games are pretty much the same? Why is Hezbollah openly critical of the Palestinian terrorists the Lebanese government (Also Hezbollah's enemy for being pro-American) is currently launching a campaign against?
There is only one reason: Because al Qaeda is Sunni, and Hezbollah is pro-Iranian Shi'a.
Or if that's not enough, let's look at Iran's meddling in Iraq. No evidence to this date has surfaced (at least publicly) to suggest that Iran is supplying arms to the Sunni insurgency. Evidence has been found showing that they are supplying arms to the very anti-American al Sadr brigades, a Shiite militia that holds significant power in the government, for attacks on American targets.
Also not more than a few weeks ago, Iraq's prime minister reached a deal with Iran's president to build a pipeline to funnel Iraqi oil to terrorist-sponsoring, center-of-Islamic-radicalism Iranian refineries, resulting in billions of dollars for Iran sure to be used to fund terrorism somewhere. But that's our pro-American Iraqi government!
So why do you continue to suggest that the Iranian agenda is to overthrow the current "pro-American" government in Iraq, when they seem to have already found the pro-Iranian neighbor they were looking for. Now all they need to do is get the U.S. to leave, and what better way to do that then giving more effective weapons to the Shiite militias to inflict more casualties?
But hell you're right, we should just support the militias because you said so. Apparently Reagan taught you a thing or two about helping Iran.
Peter at 10:31AM on May 26th 2007
15. Dear Dinesh,
While I agree they have not been "fighting for centuries", you have to admit that 'peace' in that region has always been a relative term. Thus, by Western standards, the spirit of his comment is correct. If Western civilization had been feudal for even half as long, we would be extinct.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 6:41PM on May 29th 2007