About the Samuraa shrines

[Texas Gentleman]

bahirj,

 

the document aims to create a successful modern democracy. There is a difference between theorectical demcracy and functional democracy. ................... It (functional) democracy yields power shares in accordance with population and intentionally exagerates the power of small minorities in order to avoid resentment and sedition. Since there are democratic underpinnings, the minority can never impose itself upon the majority and the net result is avoiding the oppression of minorities.

 

I read the document you referenced as a list of suggestions to guide Iraq towards a functional modern democracy ............

 

I agree. If Iraq's government continues to embrace the "winner takes all" mentality of politics then the violence will increase rather than decrease.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

By Walter E. Williams

 

Mar 1, 2006

 

High up on my list of annoyances are references to the United States as a democracy and the suggestion that Iraq should become a democracy. The word "democracy" appears in neither of our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution.

 

Our nation's founders had disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

 

John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall added, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. Their vision for us was a republic.

 

But let's cut to Iraq and President Bush's call for it to become a democracy. I can't think of a worse place to have a democracy -- majority rule. Iraq needs a republic like that envisioned by our founders -- decentralized and limited government power. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

 

Democracy, what the Bush administration calls for, is different. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws aren't necessarily based upon reason but power. In other words, democracy is just another form of tyranny -- tyranny of the majority.

 

In Iraq, Arabs are about 75 percent of the population, Kurds about 20 percent and Turkomen and Assyrian the balance. Religiously, Shia are about 60 percent of the population, Sunni 35 percent with Christian and other religions making up the balance. If a majority-rule democracy emerges, given the longstanding hate and distrust among ethnic/religious groups, it's a recipe for conflict. The reason is quite simple. Majority rule is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, with winners having the power to impose their wills on the minority. Conflict emerges when the minority resists.

 

The ideal political model for Iraq is Switzerland's cantonal system. Historically, Switzerland, unlike most European countries, was made up of several different major ethnic groups -- Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, conflicts have arisen between these groups, who differ in language, religion (Catholic and Protestant) and culture. The resolution to the conflict was to allow the warring groups to govern themselves.

 

Switzerland has 26 cantons. The cantons are divided into about 3,000 communes. Switzerland's federal government controls only those interests common to all cantons -- national defense, foreign policy, railways and the like. All other matters are controlled by the individual cantons and communes. The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live at peace with one another. As such, Switzerland's political system is well suited to an ethnically and religiously divided country such as Iraq.

 

By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our pledge of allegiance to say "to the democracy, for which it stands," and should we rename "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

[moron99]

Texas gentleman,

 

language is dynamic. each new genration thinks slightly different meaning of a word. With the passage of time the words will have an entirely different meaning. "Democracy" is such a word. To a westerner "democracy" means a complex system of power sharing that protects each minority while choosing leaders from open ballots. To others "democracy" is still taken literally. What we need to determine is what the people of Iraq want. Do they want the stability, security, and prosperity of modern democracy? Or do they want the power of majority? Perhaps what they want is something in the midlle? Perhaps what they want is "majority rules" for a short duration (in order to perform a social purging) followed by a transition to stability?

 

This is a subject that has never been explored or explained to us westerners. It is also a source of much disagreement that leaves our leaders without clear direction.

[salim]

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?sho...5834entry5834

 

I copied the replies to the above link.. May I ask to keep this post for the related Samarra post?

 

Sorry for the inconviences..

[salim]

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/784/sc3.htm

 

 

The myth of civil war

The bombing of the Samaraa sacred shrine roused leaders to call for calm and tolerance. Abbas Kadhim* hopes it is just the beginning

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The destruction of the shrine in Samaraa, where the two imams, Ali Al-Hadi and Al-Hassan Al-Askari, were buried, generated a tsunami of well-deserved condemnations from one end of the world to the other, until there is nothing to add or improve on what has been said. It is now time to assess the aftermath of this crime and where it left Iraq. Analysts worldwide are already proposing theories about civil war as if we are standing before a scene from Rwanda or Bosnia. Iraq is not very well, to be sure, but to speak of civil war is to show complete detachment from the realities of the country.

 

Iraqis were hailed for having their third democratic vote in December 2005. Yet we already began to witness several steps to separate the elections from their political consequences. At the centre of this effort is the overt participation of US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whose visibility and conduct is more like that of Paul Bremer, the former civil administrator of Iraq during the period of official occupation. While the ambassador is perhaps trying to show the world that the US is helping with this difficult process, his involvement sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq. The plight of Iraqis in the past eight decades is a legacy of the political engineering of British king-makers who cared more about establishing a friendly government than about establishing a democracy. There is hardly any difference between then and now.

 

Thankfully, Iraq and the Iraqis passed the latest test very successfully. Aside from the few whose emotions overruled their better judgement, impressive levels of restraint and awareness were manifest in the conduct of leaders and the masses alike. Important and sacred as it is, the Askari shrine is less sacred than innocent human life that is, unlike shrines and monuments, irreplaceable. This has not been the first time a sacred place came under assault. The Kabaa was destroyed more than once and other shrines came under assault time and again. In the heat of Hanbali zeal, the shrine in Baghdad was levelled to the ground in the 11th century and a street was constructed through it. In the 18th century, religious fanatics destroyed the shrines in the cemetery of Madena -- never to be rebuilt -- and attacked Karbala in 1802. They destroyed shrines, stole priceless treasures and killed thousands of innocent people. Most recently, Saddam Hussein's army rampaged through the shrine cities of Kufa, Najaf and Karbala causing great damage to the golden domes and leaving pools of innocent blood all over. Following every atrocity, Iraqis repair the damage and move on. This time will not be different. In some ways, this crime caused more good than bad. Iraqi political and religious leaders stepped in to heal the wounds. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani stated the obvious in affirming that all mosques are the houses of God and therefore they are not fair game for angry protesters. The profile of the imams and their shrine has never been as high, now that it acquired an international fame. As a reporter told me, "One needs not be Christian to appreciate St Peter's Church." The attack offended not only Muslims, but all lovers of beauty and art as well, because these monuments were state of the art in their architecture, in addition to their spiritual value. Perhaps the perpetrators' disgraceful act came as a blessing in disguise.

 

Another good was the rise of upright Muslims across the world, especially the leader of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, who is to be highly commended for his integrity and genuine compassion for all Muslims. His words were badly needed at this time when the Shia are demonised and dehunmanised by fanatical clergymen and their brainwashed followers in some Muslim countries. Enormous events like the demolition of the Samaraa shrine are excellent opportunities for good people to reveal their excellence. An international conference jointly sponsored by Al-Azhar and the Shia Hawza is very timely, indeed overdue. What is happening in Iraq is a mirror image of the state of affairs in the Muslim world at large. Committees must be formed to end the sectarian strife and provide for true mutual recognition and acceptance. No legacy can be greater than being credited for setting the stage for such an accomplishment.

 

Muslims cannot be on good terms with the world if they are not at peace with one another. The rightful outrage of Muslims against cartoons defaming the Prophet Mohamed may seem hypocritical when combined with indifference vis-à-vis the desecration of Islamic symbols and the ongoing fratricide from one end of the Muslim world to the other. If they take their own blood and symbols lightly, they may claim no moral ground for objecting to others doing the same.

 

The problem of Iraq is the lack of a strong and fully sovereign government. The country now is a confederacy of incoherent and unaccountable provinces with a failing central government. City councils from Basra to Mosul are made of gangs and militias operating with no oversight or any mechanism to ensure performance or transparency. What remains of Iraq is a de facto independent Kurdistan where the laws of the central government do not apply. On the front of reconstruction and services, billions of dollars were spent without any visible change in the daily life of Iraqis. It remains to be seen how long Iraqis will endure living in sub-human conditions while their country is one of the richest in the world -- all under the insidious excuse of the lack of security, as if one failure is a valid justification of another.

 

If there is going to be any war in the short term, it would be an all out revolt to take the country back from the corrupt and incompetent politicians who recklessly took the people's loyalty for granted.

 

* The writer is an Iraqi analyst.

[salim]

A new civil "war" is likely to start in Iraq because of the Shirnes. This time the Liberal westren media might not cover in details.

Sunni Head clergy "Awqaf" announced yesterday that they will fight to keep the honor of rebuilding the Shrines in their hands. He said that the Imams are sacred to Sunni too and specially to people of Sammara and they more belong to Imams than any other.He siad that some of families have the family trees that show their decendence from the Imam Alhadi. The shrine was under the Sunni Awqaf as Guardian as the city of Sammara is an absolute majority Sunni city. He said that any attempt to return the supervision to Shia awqaf will be considered as insult to all Sammarians . And he was very firm to ask the religous authorities to not move the guardianship from the Sunnis.

 

This came after raising calls by many Shias to recover the Shrineds from Sunni custady. They think that Sammarians are blamed to not put all efforts to protect the Shrines.. They also refer to all those behaviours by some Sunni clergy in the shrines who don't beleive in the practices of prglims and used to annoy them.

 

While Sunni belive in Imam Alhadi, they dont belive in Almehdi Shia Imam. They say that Alskaree didn't have a son.

Alqaeda Salafees had destroyed many Shrines in the Sunni traingle in the last three years . Specially those belong to well known Sunni Suffi scholars.. They also attacked Shia's Siad Muhamed shrine last year , which is just 30 miles from Samara.

 

This is not the first time that the Holy Shrines in Iraq got attacked. Wahabees did it many times in the past. The last was about eighty years ago when they attacked Kerbala and Najaf , when the peole of Iraq "both Sunni and Shia" defended them.

 

I personnly think that the shrines should be under joint supervision .. This is a sympole of unity for Iraqi people and should stay always. It is a complicated issue though.. I better leave it to the religous authorities might be the only one to decide on such sensative issue

[Guest libral media]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030600369.html

 

As result of Libral mdia propaganda, most Americans thought of possibility of civil war in Iraq.. Would every one go through the articles in the westren media and have a look to the writers assesment of Samara explotion. I mean that it will ignite the civil war, then compare this with what had happened in real life..

 

Today Alsader , the radical clergy , said they will never succeed. He meant both the media and terrorists. !!

[Airedale]

Could this article be a hint as to who or what group is responsible for the explosion at the mosque and those responsible for trying to start the " civil war" the western media talks of?

 

Will the liberal western media print this story widely for many to read ?

I say no.

It is not a story of division and failure.

 

It is a story that would show the opposite of a civil war.

It would be a sign of a war of unity to evict those that want to form their own nation and to rule using religion as the only law.

 

 

 

Iraq's Hawija Sunni tribes declare war on Zarqawi

Tribal leaders vow to fight all those who attack their sheikhs and clan leaders, including Al-Qaeda.

 

 

HAWIJA, Iraq - Faced with attacks against their sheikhs and clan members, a number of Sunni tribes from Hawija – an insurgent bastion in northern Iraq - have declared war on Al-Qaeda's frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

"We shall fight all those who commit such attacks, notably Al-Qaeda," the tribal leaders said in a statement that has been circulating around Hawija.

 

In the last month-and-a-half, the head of Al-Nuaim tribe, Ibrahim Al-Nuaimi, and one of the heads of the powerful Jubur tribe, Ahmad Mehdi Saleh, have been assassinated in this Sunni rebel bastion, 220 kilometers (137 miles) north of Baghdad.

 

Khaled Abdel Hussein, a doctor at Hawija's general hospital, was also killed by armed men who barged into the hospital building and sprayed it with bullets.

 

General Hatem Khalaf Al-Obaidi, head of the police of nearby Kirkuk, was also gunned down while in the area.

 

"It is a terror campaign against our leaders," Sheikh Abdel Rahman al-Assai, head of the Obaidi tribe, said.

We are not going allow them to silence us and do this to us. The resistance opposes the occupation and is an Iraqi affair.

 

"Terrorists and Takfiris (Sunni extremists) kill, kidnap and terrorise our people. We cannot accept this," he said.

 

He felt it was legitimate to kill these men as they belong to "Zarqawi and such groups."

 

Insurgent activity is rife in the area which has earned the nickname of Iraq's Kandahar - an allusion to the former Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

On February 22, four US soldiers were killed there when their convoy was hit by a roadside bomb.

 

The tribal leaders said groups linked to Zarqawi were carrying out attacks on the "army, police, oil and gas pipelines and technicians which harms the interests of Iraq."

 

"We never offered refuge to terrorists. All those who offer shelter to terrorists will be treated like terrorists," their statement added.

 

"We reject violence and the murders of civilians in the Arab areas."

 

"These dark forces strike all religious people and their symbols," a local Hawija council member Hussein Ali al-Jubur said.

 

Attacks on Iraqi security forces also delays the withdrawal of foreign coalition troops, he noted.

 

"We are against any action causing losses to our security forces as it weakens them and delays the withdrawal of the occupying forces (coalition forces)," he said.

 

"Attacks by Zarqawi or others worsen the sorrows of our people, deprive them of electricity, water and fuel," he added.

 

The call to arms by the tribes was welcomed by General Anwar Hama Rahma, head of the Iraqi military in Kirkuk who offered his full support to their fight against Al-Qaeda insurgents.

 

The new stand by Sunnis around Hawija mirrors that to the south in Samarra, where the killing of a key tribal sheikh last October had strained ties between Qaeda fighters and locals, although the sides have since reportedly brokered a truce.

 

The US military has also reported clashes between nationalist insurgents and Al-Qaeda in Al-Anbar province, considered a bastion of rebel violence.

 

 

 

 

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15914

Iraq needs freedom FROM religion and a purge of "the unwelcome" ,m not civil war, seems underway.

 

Certain tribes that were tricked into thinking al Queda was the way to force coalition forces out may be free to stand with fellow Iraqi's and drive them out !

[Guest laith]

Obviously who did these acts are not(normal) they are guided by foregin inteligance agencies, .many are not happy for the democratic changes in Iraq. Even within USA there are some powers against these changes.

date='Feb 22 2006, 06:55 PM' post='5765']

There are a lot to talk about the current incident of exploding the Golden mosque of Samuraa..

 

But I want to comment on some aspects that might help understand the importance of them.

 

The mosque is located in Samaraa city, a 100% sunni city in the hart of the Sunni triangle and they are run by Sunni clerics as "Amana" gardian. Iraqi Sunnis look to the Imam Ali Alhadi as an important pillar of islamic scholars. Iraqi Sunni Sufies consider him as a god father .. This Imam lived during the 9th century.

After the explosion , Samurrian sunni were the first to get ouraged and demonstarted against it. In addition for it's religious imporatance, it also represent one of the most valuable tourist value that brings hundered of thousands of prilimgs to the small city every year even today..

 

This attack is well organized to touch a very sensative and unique sympole of Sunni Shia unity..I think this incident might be a unique apportunity for getting both Arab sects together. Let us wait and see...

[salim]

حلقة يوم الخميس 14 يونيو/ حزيران 2007

 

حلقة اليوم من برنامج "ما قل ودل" تستضيف الشيخ محمود الصميدعي خطيب وإمام جامع أم القرى في بغداد للحديث عن تفجير مرقدي الإمامين العسكريين في سامراء.

اضغط للاستماع

 

 

http://radiosawa.com/RadioSawaAudio.aspx?

[salim]

Bush discusses Iraqi reforms with Presidential Council in Iraq

 

WASHINGTON, June 18 (KUNA) -- President George W. Bush on Monday had a 52-minute video teleconference with members of the Presidential Council in Iraq -- the prime minister, president and two vice presidents -- concerning ongoing efforts in pursuit of Iraqi political, economic and security reforms, White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

 

Bush expressed support for their working together, "especially considering what has gone on recently in Iraq, the attacks in Samarra," Snow said, referring to the bombing of the mosque there last week.

 

The Presidential Council in Iraq is becoming more effective and coherent as an organization "so that you have not only much closer personal but professional dealings between the four members -- at one point calling themselves the Gang of Four," Snow said. Bush "was impressed and reassured by the sense of seriousness that he heard in the meeting." " ... It is clear that you have got an environment now where the key leaders are working together on these issues, and, yes, we have heard a lot of these things before," Snow said. But ... "we think they are very serious in moving forward on the key items." Asked about recent remarks by U.S. General David Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force Iraq, that it could take about a decade to stabilize Iraq, Snow said what General Petraeus was pointing out was "pretty much standard doctrine when it comes to counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency is something that does take a great amount of time." "That does not mean that you are going to have people on a forward combat operation posture for 10 years, but ... he says that it is perfectly conceivable, and that intends to be kind of the textbook sense of how long such operations take place," Snow said. (end) rm.