Sunni-Shi’ite Jihad in Iraq

ALeqM5iXqGbomt7IwyPZIeIqajxjG9-P9gLargely overlooked as world attention focused on the jihad massacre in an upscale Nairobi mall was a series of jihad bombings last Saturday in Baghdad that murdered at least 92 people. The bombs went off as a funeral procession passed through the Shi’ite district of Baghdad known as Sadr City, making the likely perpetrator to be the Sunni jihad group formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, and that now calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

It’s an endless cycle of hatred and revenge. The day after the attack in Sadr City, a Shi’ite jihad-martyrdom suicide bomber hit a Sunni funeral in Baghdad, murdering sixteen people and wounding 35.

The killers on both sides believed that they were doing what the Qur’an directs: “And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution” (5:45).

Nonetheless, they’re supposed to have been over this by now. Then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained in January 2007: “There’s still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms. But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that.”

Six years later, they still haven’t. In fact, as Syria has become a battleground between the Shi’ites of Hizballah and the Sunnis of al-Qaeda (with Iran aiding the former and the United States, of all nations, aiding the latter), the ancient hatred is raging hotter than ever, and Rice’s glib prescription stands exposed as just as spectacularly naïve as it was when it was first uttered.

In fact, the idea that the Sunni-Shi’ite divide, which is 1,400 years old and goes all the way back to the murky origins of Islam, is something that can without undue difficulty be “overcome” is a sterling manifestation of the general superficiality of Washington’s analysis of the Middle East, during both the Bush and the Obama Administrations.

Unbeknownst to the tenured analysts who have influenced Washington policy for decades now, the Sunni-Shi’ite divide cannot be bridged by negotiations, or by bribes (“aid”), or by anything but the full surrender of one group to the other, which is not going to happen. This is because the divide has enough roots in each side’s differing understandings of Islam for hardliners in both camps to label the other “unbelievers,” and thus people who can lawfully be killed.

The split goes all the way back to the beginnings of Islam. Islamic tradition holds that after Muhammad died (which is supposed to have happened in 632 CE), the Muslim community chose his companion Abu Bakr to succeed him as caliph, or successor of Muhammad as the military, political and spiritual leader of the Muslims. But one group among them thought that the leadership belonged by right to Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of his first followers, and after him to a member of the prophet’s household.

Ali finally did become caliph after Abu Bakr had been succeeded by two other companions of Muhammad, Umar and Uthman, but was assassinated only a few years later. Then in the year 680, his son Hussein was killed in battle with the caliph Yazid I at Karbala in Iraq, and the split between those who believed that the caliph should be the best man in the community (the Sunnis) and those who believed the Muslims should be led by a relative of Muhammad (the Shi’ites) became formal, bitter and everlasting.

There is not much doctrinal difference between the two camps, but since each believes that the other has departed from the truth of Islam, and each (particularly the Shi’ites) nurses centuries-old grudges over ancient wrongs done to them, this split is not going to be “overcome.” Saddam Hussein kept a lid on it in Iraq by brute force, but now that he is gone and a Shi’ite government is in power there, the Sunnis are determined to wrest control back from them, and the Shi’ites and their Iranian patrons are just as determined to keep it.

It is a recipe for endless warfare, until the Mahdi returns and reveals whether he has come as the Sunni or the Shi’ite version. In the meantime, the carnage in Iraq is a grim monument to the price of Washington’s false and faulty analysis, and a warning to Barack Obama not to get entangled in these centuries-old and undying hatreds once again in Syria.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • UIO

    This violence serves as a reminder of the savagry of the Middle East. It should also serve as a reminder of American stupidity.

    What kind of idiot would expect a beacon of democracy in that region? What kind of idiot would expect Iran not to take advantage from the destruction of its enemy? And what kind of idiot would destroy relatively secular Arab nationalism in favor of religious zealots?

    • Chris

      “what kind of idiot would destroy relatively secular Arab nationalism in favor of religious zealots?”
      - The kind of idiot you have in the White House now

      • Seek

        And the kind of idiot who was the immediate predecessor of the current idiot. Do you think George W. Bush was any less naive than Obama?

        • Yeah..so?

          by George Bush, you mean de facto President Cheney didn’t you???

        • defcon 4

          At least Dubya didn’t have MB operatives in the CIA and his own cabinet.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            At least Dubya didn’t have MB operatives in the CIA and his own cabinet

            I hate to inform you, but Dubya’s administration was infiltrated to the hilt as well. Indeed, who was Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad? Remember him? He was first the ambassador to Afghanistan, then subsequently to Iraq too. However, in reality he was really and still is a stealth jihadist exactly like all Muslims as well, as he convinced the Bush State Department to acquiesce to the infusion of both state’s respective constitutions with Sharia as being the highest law of the land, and never mind the fact that Sharia is really Islamic totalitarian law. Thus, thanks to Bush’s gross incompetence and malfeasance in office; both countries today are Sharia Islamic totalitarian states. Indeed, Bush was every bit as incompetent as Obama when it came to protecting the country from the scourge of Islam. He was a fricking disgrace!

          • DP111

            This guy is in the news for money laundering. Who would have thought a prominent moderate Muslim would be involved in money laundering.

            And oh yes, for what purpose?

      • Yeah..so?

        This is what George Bush did…like I mentionned in a above comment, why would a secular state (Saddam’s Iraq) bring WMDs to a non state actor that embrace a much stronger Sharia Law??

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Saddam’s WMD wasn’t the problem. Bush’s insane “War on Terror” was the problem as it was incredibly fantasy-based. Had Bush wanted to oust Saddam from power, no problem, simply oust Saddam and then get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. If subsequently the Sunnis and Shiites want to wage jihad for control of Iraq, then so much the better, especially since Muslims slaughtering other Muslims is exactly what we need.

          If Bush wanted to eradicate OBL and AQ in retaliation for 9/11, then target them specifically and eradicate them. But whatever you do, please don’t occupy another Islamic country to pursue an incredibly foolish so-called “War on Terror” because Islam is no “religion of peace.” In fact, Islam is no religion at all, but instead a very aggressive and destructive form of totalitarianism. Heck, that war was so incredibly fantasy based that even the name of it was incredibly fantasy based, as Muslims aren’t terrorists because they are jihadists instead. Indeed, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam and is a holy fundamental obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another.

          The Islamic world will never be democratized without first eradicating Islam.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Saddam’s WMD wasn’t the problem. Bush’s insane “War on Terror” was the problem as it was incredibly fantasy-based. Had Bush wanted to oust Saddam from power, no problem, simply oust Saddam and then get the heck out of Iraq ASAP. If subsequently the Sunnis and Shiites want to wage jihad for control of Iraq, then so much the better, especially since Muslims slaughtering other Muslims is exactly what we need.

          If Bush wanted to eradicate OBL and AQ in retaliation for 9/11, then target them specifically and eradicate them. But whatever you do, please don’t occupy another Islamic country to pursue an incredibly foolish so-called “War on Terror” because Islam is no “religion of peace.” In fact, Islam is no religion at all, but instead a very aggressive and destructive form of totalitarianism. Heck, both wars was so incredibly fantasy based that even the name of it was incredibly fantasy based, as Muslims aren’t terrorists because they are jihadists instead. Indeed, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam and is a holy fundamental obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, i.e., either violent or non-violent and by stealth and deception.

          The Islamic world will never be democratized without first eradicating Islam. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible.

          • AtergGwanyik

            Obamayomoma. Thank you for your blogg above, I agree with you totallly. There will be no democracy or any kind of freedom in the middle East or other Islamic countries unless Islam is eliminated! Our country supports the wrong sides. The Shah of Iran was the beginning, Ayatolah Khoumenu established a strict Theocracy. Sadam Hussein was replace by another worse theocracy and continued war between Shiites an Sunis. Mubarek in Egypt, by Mursi and thanks God noe by a miltary remomen . Not to mention Lybia. Our government is very Islamophilic , and seems to neglect the only democracy in the middle East, Israel.

    • Gee

      Because there already exists one – been there for the last 65 years.

      The only problem is that it isn’t a Muslim state

    • defcon 4

      Egypt under Nasser still ruthlessly persecuted its centuries old Jewish population. Ditto for Syria under any of the Assads.

      • Gee

        Saddam went after both the Jews and the Kurds

        • defcon 4

          I”ll cry for the muslime Kurds…NOT.

    • bill reitzes

      Duh!!! Islam and democracy together?
      Not possible.
      Tell me where there is a democratic Muslim country?
      Truly democratic please

  • randy deresti

    The religion of peace.

    • Bamaguje

      More like ‘religion of beasts.’

    • Yeah..so?

      Peace….in their own terms!!

  • thult

    Still, the common denominator is . . . . Islam, the belief system wherein its followers are directed to KILL EVERYONE who does not believe like they do, AND, in order to be assured of eternal salvation with 72 virgins (there is NO OTHER assurance available), martyr yourself in the furtherance of Islam’s objective of world dominance by killing those who do not believe the same tribal tenets! That’s it! Outside of martyring yourself, there is NO assurance certainty of reaching heaven (and your 72 virgins).

    • Heaven’s Pimp

      So Mohammed is really a pimp promising sex with virgins – anyone who believes that must be as naive as a child who believes in Santa Clause.

  • Elliott

    So, how do we explain the relative “peace” between these to barbaric factions in other Arabic/Muslim countries? Why is there this intensity in Syria and Iraq? Is it because of the instability of the government? Would a more stable government, even like those in Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emerits, Indonesia, etc., suggest less violence? If so, maybe Bush was right and Obama just doesn’t know how to handle foreign policy? …. Nah, that couldn’t be. Barak is a really smart guy. Just look at his college transcripts. Wait…

    • Yeah..so?

      Why the relative “peace” in other states??maybe because in Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon) both school of religious thoughts tend to have huge minorities?Sunnia being a huge majority in Iraq for instance. As for other states, the Shia makes such a small number…..I beleive in African countries, 95% of the muslims are Sunnia, the rest being shia or other groups. In the Saudi kingdom, shia represent few people….more than in Algeria but less than in Syria and those shia suffers from the Saudi’s domestic policy and Iran is then too eager to push for Shia rights in the Middle East.
      In Iran, Shia are close to 70% of the population..no wonder sunnia can’t do much. Few people know that Al-Qaida and Iran have (or used to have) this love-hate relationships because of the schism. Assuming Iran would support Al-Qaida is stupid, such support would always remain limited. Why would a shia state (iran) blindy support a sunnia group (Al-Qaida) and why would a secular state (Saddam’s Iraq) bring WMDs to a non state actor that embrace a much stronger Sharia Law??

      • defcon 4

        “stronger Sharia Law”? Any amount of Sharia Law is too much.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        All that matters and that is important for us to know with respect to the Sunnis and Shiites is that they are both Muslims and therefore both the eternal mortal enemy of all non-Muslim infidels in the world, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

        Why the relative “peace” in other states??

        It’s because all power vacuums are currently filled. Want to destabilize them, simply create a power vacuum. For instance, when Saddam was ousted from power, it created a giant power vacuum. Had Bush been a true conservative as opposed to what he actually was, which is a leftwing moonbat pretending to be a conservative, the USA would have abandoned Iraq as soon as Saddam had been captured. This would have left a giant power vacuum behind that would have resulted in a jihad that may have lasted for decades involving virtually the entire Islamic world. It would have been great for the infidel world and very detrimental for the Islamic world.

        As a matter of fact, had Bush’s Dad, Bush I, been a true conservative instead of a stealth leftist masquerading as being a conservative similar to his son, instead of ousting Saddam out of Kuwait in deference to his good friends the Saudi Royal Family and the Gulf Sate Emirs, all founding members of OPEC, he would have urged Saddam to conquer them all. Why? Well, for several reasons, because it makes no difference from whom we buy our oil and at the same time it would have dealt a very devastating blow to the force of Islam since Saddam was secular, as Islam today is an astronomically far greater threat to the freedom of the world than Saddam could have ever been. Indeed, it might have even been a deathblow for Islam. It’s another missed opportunity thanks to leftists masquerading as being conservatives.

        • Yeah..so?

          Had Bush son be a real conservative, no Iraq War would have started…then assuming it had started, Saddam Hussein would have remained in power with only crucial military targets destroyed but definitly no overthrown let alone an occupation. What you say in your “vaccum theory” might be very correct but regarding the Shia and Sunnia, it mostly how much power might the minority get….A state with say 51% shia and 49% sunnia will be more subject to instabillity than say 91% shia and 9% sunnia. The shia-sunnia civil wars (for a lack of better word) is also very present in Lebanon (strong shia and sunnia population) which is a somehow stable state..at least compared to Iraq with no real vaccum .This same civil war is not as present in African countries despite being the most corrupted, failed states in the planet..because there, Sunnia make up almost the whole musliim population.

    • Jakareh

      Not every Muslim country has a significant number of both Sunnis and Shi’ites. All the ones that do experience significant sectarian strife.

      • defcon 4

        Would that be before or after they slaughter or ethnically cleanse the filthy kuffar from their midst?

        • Jakareh

          Both, of course.

      • Elliott

        The suggestion that there is either an insignificant number of one or the other savage groups of barbarians, or of both, in those countries experiencing relatively “peaceful” relations between the two infers Mr. Spencer may be exaggerating their violent potential. This may also suggest the likelihood of a much more significant effect of the attrition of both as they limit their violence to each other in those states where their violence is permitted, if not encouraged. Wouldn’t it be wise, therefore, to allow our adversaries to decimate their ranks, wait to see which succeeds and then focus our defense mechanisms against that much less powerful opponent – assuming it is left with any credible threat to our national security?

  • DontAssume

    I think you are falsely assuming the perpetrator of the attack on a Sunni funeral was a Shiite. In fact, if you look at the victims of Al Qaeda…they also attack Sunnis

    • thult

      And, or, nevertheless, the common denominator is WHAT?

      • defcon 4

        Maybe if you understood written English you could figure it out all on your own.

        • thult

          This is a dimwitted statement, defcon4, entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Again I’ll ask, what is the common denominator involved in EACH of the bombings, funeral attacks, and marketplace/mall mass killings?

          • Biff Henderson

            Oxygen? It’s being wasted on the Muslim population.

          • Drakken

            Here let me help you, the common denominator is ISLAM.

          • thult

            BINGO!

          • defcon 4

            I had figured you were trying to excuse islam from being in any way tied to islamic terrorism. Sorry.

          • thult

            Thanks for closing the loop, AND for reinforcing my faith in a thinking mankind!

          • DontAssume

            A normal person would say Al Qaeda or terrorists.

          • defcon 4

            LOL, sure thing Ahmed. But who supports Al Qaeda? Or are you saying Al Qaeda is a for-profit islamic business venture?

    • Aizino Smith

      “In fact, if you look at the victims of Al Qaeda…they also attack Sunnis”

      Sure false flag attacks to incite Sunnis to violence against shi’ites. We know.

      Still the common denominator is Islam.

      As we speak the Shia PM of Iraq is looking for ways to screw over the Sunnis. So whether this or that suicide bomber was form what sects is in some respects not germane when you have open legislative warfare designed to be warfare by means of the pen.

  • Chezwick

    “There’s still a tendency to see these things in Sunni-Shia terms. But the Middle East is going to have to overcome that.”

    For as long as theology and doctrine are CENTRAL, the schism will NEVER be “overcome”.

    I recently debated a Danish socialist in an on-line forum about the repercussions for Europe regarding large-scale Muslim immigration. The gist of his argument was that: “[Christians in Denmark no longer believe in religion, we've grown out of such childishness...and as Muslim immigrants are exposed to our culture, the same thing will gradually happen to them.]”

    I tried to explain to him how his thinking was both relativist and arrogant….that Muslims have their own value-system, and that his “culture” – one that stands for so little besides materialism – is hardly a model to inspire these people. Of course, my efforts were to no avail…try talking sense to a socialist.

    The recurring theme uncovered in my on-going discourse with Europeans is their belief that all religions are the same. I try explaining that this premise is absurd….tantamount to saying that all ideas are the same. I try to point out that it actually MATTERS what is said theology and scripture….that the difference in ethics between Jesus (as promulgated in the Gospel) and Muhammad (as promulgated in the Hadith/Sira) actually amounts to something tangible. The Shia-Sunni schism is just one more example of this. It’s not going away, any more than the Jihad-in-perpetuity against Darul Harb.

    • defcon 4

      It’s too bad things like logic don’t ever intrude on the fantasies of those who like to look on all religion as being the same.

  • Jerseychris

    They’re killing each other. And Obame is giving them the weapons to do it. So, what’s the problem?

    • Gee

      Muslims have this habit of making sure that no good deed goes unpunished

      • defcon 4

        They slaughter, rape and persecute people ot other faiths w/o any motivation beyond that spelt out in their holey books of hate.

  • Yeah..so?

    Under Saddam Hussein, whatever massacre there was mostly sponsored..in other words, it was under the party in power’s watch and more stability had been present under Saddam since the early 1980s than in Iraq since his fall. By invading Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein although the WMDs were the main concern (and not regime change), the international coalition failed to appreciate the division within Islam. There is a reason why the somehow moderate regime in Iran was willing to work with Bush regarding toppling Saddam Hussein.
    Even though Iraq is the first Shia-arab state, Sunnia there represent a lot of the population. Being the minority doesn’t mean having no influence at all.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      With all due disrespect, you’re a mental basket case.

      • Yeah..so?

        Thanks for your input.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          The Islamic world needs to be destabilized not stabilized, as Muslims killing other Muslims is very healthy for infidels but very detrimental for Muslims.

    • defcon 4

      “Moderate regime in Iran”. LOL, piling it deeper and higher eh, Fatima?

      • Yeah..so?

        Sorry, can’t do nothing for your ignorance beside advising you to read the appropriate journals or archives. Drop Fox News, it will be a start.

        • defcon 4

          Look allahtard, I’ve met Iranian Jews (who have no admiration whatsoever for your islam0nazi “Republic”) and have a magazine published by Zoroastrians that spells out their persecution at the hands of the islam0nazis who now run Iran. Shove. It. Where. The. Sun. Don’t. Shine.

          • Yeah..so?

            Again, there is nothing I could do regarding your ignorance beside looking good sources. I have no doubt on what you said about Iranian Jews is correct but given it is an Islam country, one doesn’t need to hear such statement or read any magazine to know this. Then, anyone with descent knoweldge in Iran will tell you the Khatami administration was more open to foreign relations with the West than its follower, more eager for modern reforms at home and many Iranian I have met..those with education, clearly hate Ahmadinejad and what he has done to Iran.

  • defcon 4

    The battle for a successor to Muhammad sounds like the transference of power in any successful mafia family.

  • Veracious_one

    The day after the attack in Sadr City, a Shi’ite jihad-martyrdom suicide bomber hit a Sunni funeral in Baghdad, murdering sixteen people and wounding 35.

    Muslims are never happy with a funeral that has only one body……

  • celador2

    Obama and US are not cops of the world but Us invaded and set up the current gov so has some kind of responsibility to prevent the blood baths and civil wars that resulted in the invasion and imposed ‘democracy’ no one asked for.

    • Andy

      And how do you propose that the US exercise our ”responsibility” to prevent the blood baths and civil wars? The US tried to leave a residual force in Iraq and their ”government” thankfully said no.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We shouldn’t have occupied Iraq in the first place and just left as soon as Saddam was captured. Indeed, Bush’s entire so-called “War on Terror” was incredibly fantasy-based and was predetermined to fail even before it was ever implemented.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Only if you are mentally incompetent enough to morally equate Muslims with non-Muslim infidels. Indeed, it would have been very advantageous for us to have abandoned Iraq immediately following the US capture of Saddam. As Muslims slaughtering other Muslims is very good for the infidel world and at the same time very detrimental for the Islamic world. Muslims are our eternal mortal enemies my dear, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

  • Drakken

    The fact of the matter is if we were smart, and of course were not, we would encourage them to slaughter each other to their little jihadist hearts content, then to really add to the fun, we should be arming the Kurds in the north like the Russians are doing as we speak, thus gaining influence, and let them declare their independence and let them be a wonderful pain in the azz to both parties and throw a monkey wrench into the divide in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Then we sit back, grab a bourbon and a cigar and watch as they tear each other to pieces, a win win for the west and a huge eff you for all the problems the savages have created for us. Of course we would have to throw in all the bleeding heart libtards for good measure.

    • defcon 4

      I think Sunni islam is far and away the dominant sect of Islam. Shiites are disallowed from having any mosques of their persuasion in Soddy Barbaria.

      • Drakken

        Yes of course that is correct, but as far as the big picture is concerned, let them have at each other and encourage where necessary. That will thin out the herd.

  • LightningJack

    Peaceful coexistence will always remain impossible with the theocratic state of fundamentalist Islam, because its absolutist, throw back clergy never consent to the reformation of Islams core theological and political hard-line, jihasist doctrine, which encompasses all individuals, and requires the complete control of all aspects of human life.

    We need to stay out of the Middle East, and specifically avoid getting involved, as a infidel mercenary force, in another one of their “no-win” sectarian ground wars under the absurd justification of enabling democracy and social justice.

    How many times have we heard that duck flatulence in the mud before?

    • defcon 4

      Where is non-fundamental islam being practiced again? Because I’m not noticing any reformed mosques, or protestant mosques anywhere, just the same old savage islamic bullshit.

  • No RNC

    Condoleezza Rice is the complete DC pkg; massive Affirmative Action pedigree, ex-DemoRat, Russian un-expert, follower of Commie Professor, ?Gay?, moderate intelligence combined w/ amazing arrogant ignorance and yet we wonder how “Conservative” GWB failed in both Domestic & Foreign Policies when old Condo Rice was his Sec. of State and National Security Advisor when those 19 Saudi Cessna Pilots attacked the US. Please this women needs to have a big spotlight shown on her TOTAL lack of success. Funny how many like old Condo always fail up…what ever became of the American Meritocracy?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Very wise advice, indeed!