Saturday, November 27, 2004
Sunni and Shiite Iraq - Intermingling
[This is a complex issue and I feel like someone about to take a walk through a mine field. But I believe it may be necessary to give readers a "feel" of some of the complexities of "Sunni-Shiite" Iraq today. This post may be confusing to some readers. It is not for the faint-hearted.]
Sect Conversion
Changing from sect to sect does not require anything else besides declaration of intent and following the practice of the new sect. This conversion takes place all the time. It has been taking place for 1400 years.
On a large scale, it happened in Iran in the 18th century when their Shahs converted and it happened in the 19th century in the south-eastern provinces of Iraq.
On an individual level:
• It is a common practice for people to become Shiite when moving to live in a predominantly Shiite area or vice versa. It happened constantly for the past 1400 years. It happens all the time today.
• In the Shiite doctrine, if someone dies leaving only daughters, then his inheritance goes completely to those daughters. In the Sunni doctrine, the person's brothers get a share. This has been a frequent cause for conversion for such people – mainly in the cities. [One notable case that comes to my mind is a member of the now-defunct Governing Council who was generally regarded as "representing" secular Sunnis. This gentleman has only three daughters and has converted to Shi-ism.]
• In Islamic marriage, the dowry is in two parts; one part is paid to the wife in advance. The second part is called the deferred dowry. In the Sunni doctrine, this is paid in the case of divorce or death, whichever comes first! In the Shiite practice, this has to be paid on demand to the wife, at any time of her liking! In practice, this is hardly an issue as failed marriages are few and far between. In mixed marriages (which are numerous, especially in "mixed" areas) this question comes up and has to be agreed upon. In such marriages, there is no requirement for any of the partners to convert. The difference in sect between husband and wife is a constant source of family humor.
Divided Loyalties
The allegiances of an Iraqi, like other people in other countries, cover a wide framework of beliefs and considerations. These include: Self, family, tribe, religion, race, town, nation, political doctrine and economic doctrine. Many of these factors are present in the consciousness, or sub-consciousness, of most of us. We only differ in the relative importance we give to each. The difference is in the mix! I cannot even begin to categorize such a complex structure for the wide spectrum of Iraqi people but will refer to these in the context of the issue discussed.
Kinship Factors – The tribal "half" of Iraq.
Of the conversion factors listed above, the most important factor to keep in mind in today's Iraq is the first. This has to be regarded in the context of the tribal nature of much of rural Iraq (and many of the smaller provincial towns… and even parts of the larger towns). Such conversions, over centuries, have led to a large number of tribes being of both denominations - some with a Shiite majority, others with a Sunni majority.
The important point is that the loyalty of many of these people to their kin is something fundamental in their make-up. They usually maintain considerable ties and contacts and are frequently brought together through tribal arbitration councils, paying respect in deaths, allegiance to respected tribal chiefs (who can be of a different sect), etc. This very significant factor is almost always overlooked by many two-color Sunni-Shiite analysts (including some Iraqis) when discussing the sectarian problem in Iraq.
[In one notable instance, members of a large "conglomerate" of tribes, the Muntafik in the Nassereyyah and Basrah provinces, are predominantly Shiite. Their tribal chiefs for the past three centuries, the Sa'adoun family, are Sunnis. Now that family has headed those tribes by choice, not by force! Confusing? I'm sure it is!]
I will go as far as to say that for many of these people, fighting their kin over a sectarian dominance is unlikely… and even if such a thing is started by some overwhelming factor, there are so many channels between them that blood ties will ultimately come on top.
Confusion with geography
Many people in Iraq think they can tell a Shiite from a Sunni from his or her accent or attire. I have heard and seen this so many times. The differences these people refer to are usually geographic in nature and have little to do with sect. People from southern provinces usually use a different style of head-gear (igal – smaller and thicker) and have a different accent from people in the western regions for example (in fact, each province has its own dialect, much like many other countries).
The "mixed" half of Iraq
This can be illustrated by looking at people who live in "mixed" areas. Time and again I was struck by how difficult it is to tell people apart. They usually have the same accent, the same dress, social customs and the same mannerisms.
An anecdote as an illustration:
I once attended a meeting of people in such an area in July after the invasion. I knew many of those present and I started reflecting on this matter… This one's son is a Baathist, this one's son is with the resistance, this one's brother was executed by Saddam and so on and so forth. Most people of one sect were related by marriage to others of the other sect. There was so much in common between those people that being a Shiite or a Sunni had to take a lower priority to those common factors!
I honestly cannot see these people killing each other for religious sectarian reasons.
"Mixed" Baghdad
This even applies to Baghdad, the melting pot of Iraq. Inner Baghdad (the old city) has a number of traditionally predominantly Shiite districts and predominantly Sunni districts. The peripheral districts (most of them grew within the last 50 years) usually reflect the nature of the region most people come from.
But generally, most of Baghdad is so thoroughly mixed that it would be extremely difficult to think of the people there being involved in any sectarian or civil war with any sound degree of rationality. It is just not possible. As I write this, I think of my own neighbors – Sunnis and Shiites all around! People used to make many jokes about it… on both sides (but not during the past year! Those jokes simply disappeared! You may find this odd… but this is more worrying to me than all the "expert" analyses I read!).
In most of "urbane" Baghdad and other large cities, neighborly and neighborhood relations dominate over kinship and tribal bonds.
I cannot over-emphasize the importance of Baghdad. It has a quarter of the whole population of Iraq. Culturally Baghdad sets the pace for the whole country.
In addition to Baghdad, the mixed regions include the provinces of Diala, Babel and, to a lesser extent, Basra. These comprise approximately half of the Arab population of Iraq.
Cultural and Political Mix
I have already referred to the complexity of Iraqi society. In addition to the "blood" relations that play an important role in the loyalties of many people, there is a large secular segment in Iraqi society. Well into the 1980's, this segment was the leading force that shaped the political climate in Iraq. People who are pan-Arabists, communist, humanist, simply secular etc. etc. are generally people for whom the Sunni Shiite question, even if present, would by necessity take a lower consideration than those doctrines and their commitment to them.
At the other end of the spectrum, a Shiite country person from Deywaneyyah in the south would find a lot more in common in terms of values, customs and even costumes with a Sunni tribesman from Ramadi than with an urbane fellow Shiite from Baghdad. A Sunni Arab Nationalist would identify more with a Shiite pan-Arabist from Basrah than a fellow Sunni communist, and so on and so forth. All these bonds and loyalties extend beyond the two-color façade of the over-simplistic Sunni Shiite divide.
To add further confusion to this post… it is quite natural to come across an Iraqi communist (who is a committed atheist) who thinks of himself as a Sunni or a Shiite. This also widespread among seculars! They regard Sunni-ism and Shi-ism more as a "culture" than a religious sect.
***
I am not saying that differences do not exist; on the contrary, they do. There are major differences and genuine grievances. For example, many middle-class Shiites genuinely feel that they have had less than a fair prospect of important jobs or promotions because they were Shiite. Many people in Kut, for example, feel that their town was not developed like other Sunni parts in Iraq because it was a Shiite area.
What I'm saying is that it is difficult for these differences and grievances to lead to civil war. It is my belief that even if such a thing is started, the channels and links available between the various groups will facilitate a relatively fast resort to reason and reconciliation. It would not lead to a chaos much worse than the present one! There would not be a blood bath deeper than the present one!
Update – January 2007:
The above may sound like an unreasonable assertion under the present conditions of senseless sectarian violence engulfing Iraq (and the ‘mixed’ areas in particular). There has been much debate over whether the ongoing Iraqi-Iraq strife was a civil war or not. Oddly, the US administration, the Iraqi government and the national resistance all agree that it is not! This is not as perplexing as it seems. The explanation is that it is not a civil war in the sense that large segments of the public attack each other. To this date, there has not been a single significant sectarian incident involving ordinary people! It is still a civil war in the making, through a persistent campaign of sectarian assaults... by forces of darkness. On the other hand, considerable polarization of the population has been taking place. Ordinary people’s attitudes are showing increasing signs of ‘hardening’ and sect animosity.
Comments:
Circular,
I hope that this post answers some of your (and Bruno's) questions. I am already dreading the number of possible questions this post may raise! You didn't even keep your promise not to ask any more questions for a few days!
By the way, I have not found a solution yet to the question of chaos in comment posting that does not lead to shutting some people out. This section is the readers' domain. I guess I might just as well leave the readers to sort it out within the constraints of relevancy and decency. Does this sound fair? Even if I do not contribute to this corner, I will read every post, including those by "not"-Paul Edwards and royalty.
Bob Griffin,
This post is not a substitute to our intended religious debate, but it may serve as useful background to any future discussion of religion (and politics).
_____________________________________________________________________
Boy, ask and ye shall be given. I’m totally confused now.
Abu’s description reminds me of this sad plaint from Faiza in AFamilyinBaghdad, a few days ago:
"People are clashing, and hating each other, and everyone thinks himself right…
Some see in the new Iraqi Army and Police Force the nucleus of a new Iraqi State, giving hope of independence, and the departure of the occupation forces from Iraq, while others see them as the dirty, traitorous faces who deserve to die by trapped cars.
Some see in the coming elections a nucleus of a new Iraqi state, and the eviction of the occupation, spending his efforts to participate, and give, while others see it as a dirty conspiracy, a collaboration with the occupation, to keep it here, and issue threats and death against those who want to take part in the elections, candidates or voters.
Some see in Fallujah a jihad, its characters heroes, and some see them as a bunch of thieves and murderers.
Some see in the Shia’at Referencing Council the wisdom and calmness in dealing with the occupation forces, waiting for the right time to evict them, and some others see in the Shia’a a group in collusion with the occupation, who deserve to die…
Some see the Sunnis as lone, striving fighters against occupation, while some see them as fools, wanting to re-establish their single-handed management of rule, or destroy the country, in the pretext of refusing occupation…
This is the reality of the matter here… the scene has various images, and each faction sticks to an image of these, fighting for it, thinking himself on the right side.
All right, we all agree on disliking the occupation…we all want to build a new Iraq… but how?"
This is from Abu is puzzling and alarming:
"But generally, most of Baghdad is so thoroughly mixed that it would be extremely difficult to think of the people there being involved in any sectarian or civil war with any sound degree of rationality. It is just not possible. As I write this, I think of my own neighbors – Sunnis and Shiites all around! People used to make many jokes about it… on both sides (but not during the past year! Those jokes simply disappeared! You may find this odd… but this is more worrying to me than all the "expert" analyses I read!)."
And he said this in the last Blog:
"Someone is trying very hard indeed to stir sectarian strife in Iraq and transform it to an Iraqi-Iraqi conflict."
Perhaps it would be interesting for omniscient readers to describe pluralistic societies they know about that work? I mean, Abu makes it sound as though Iraq could have accommodated religious and political diversity, if only someone had thought to disarm it after they invaded it?
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
One word: Sarajevo
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9604/10/index.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes, it is difficult to understand the situation as it is today, but would it have been better if Saddam were still in power, and looking forward to the day when his sons took over the reins of government?
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF UNITY IN IRAQIs the lawlessness at an acceptable level for most Iraqis or will it get worse? Can it be overcome should the U.S. Forces leave the country or will someone just as tyrannical replace Saddam's rule? Who would be the voice for law and order in Iraq?
Would your opinion about conditions change if you or one of your family were the next victim of some of the lawless elements?
We learn a lot from your writing, Abu, and I'm sure most of your readers are saddened by the plight of both you, your family, and countrymen. Yet, it appears that there is going to be an armed conflict if the U.S. remains awhile, and a larger one if the U.S. leaves. You do not see the Iraqis fighting each other, but I do not believe this is a rational view. They're already doing so, and Saddam was killing them at a faster rate before (not that that justifies more killing). How much killing did Sadr's men do in Falloujah when he was in control there? I understand it was extensive.
_____________________________________________________________________
Circular to Abu
Looks like no-one is interested in information, they just want to argue.
I'll be overseas for a couple of weeks.
Thanks for letting me participate in your Blog. It's been educational and entertaining!
_____________________________________________________________________
Howarde,
I'm afraid I don't think you are learning much from my writings. Most of your statements contradict what I have been saying for months.
As to my own personal loss, I find your statement a bit inconsiderate. I assure you that I have suffered losses that I am not prepared to share publicly but the pain of those losses will remain with me to the end of my life. I am talking about many other people's losses which many Americans unfortunately do not seem to have the capacity to feel.
Regarding the present post, I have outlined the reasons behind my conclusions at some length. It is not sufficient to state that you "do not believe this is a rational view", implying that it is an irrational view!
Iraqis are not killing each other, and definitely not over sectarian issues (yet). Innocent people are being killed by three groups of people: Pure criminals, terrorists and the US army (and affiliated forces). All these are the responsibility of your administration in leading to the present chaos though mismanagement and incompetence. This is what I have been saying for months.
Finally, I also assure you that Sadr did not at any time have any men in Fallujah neither was he in control of the city at any time.
As the underlying reasons for your opinion of the matter are evidently all incorrect, are you prepared to reconsider your position? Or are all my efforts futile?
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel --
Thank you for your informative post. I tend to agree with your sentiments. I come from South Africa, and we have a pretty damn diverse culture. It is not just white and black, there are Indians and Coloureds that see themselves often as different groups to "blacks". Also, even between whites there are divisions based on whether they are English or Afrikaans speaking. And between blacks similar tribal differences often arise - Zulu and Xhosa for example.
The reality is, our country could have been a bloodbath on a vast scale had the hot heads prevailed. As it stands now, yes, there are many tensions. Yes there are laws and positions that are seen as unfair by both blacks and whites. But we all tend to get along, because in the real world, it is more important to do business, to have fun with friends and family and to mind one's own hobbies than to pick fights. The fact is, one has to compromise to achieve peace. All sides have to accept that they will not get all they want, only some of it. I do believe that Iraqis are more than intelligent enough to achieve these compromises, despite the difficult positions they are in.
What I fear is that outside forces (read US) will try to accentuate divisions between Iraqis as a way to divide and rule by pitting each group against the other. Other outside forces like Al Qaeda might also profit from a civil war, because they would use it as cover to fight the Americans and as a way to justify remaining in Iraq because their skills in killing would be valuable. Not to mention the use of Iraqis as cannon fodder.
I do believe that if the US leaves, Iraqis themselves will be able to sort out any foreign elements that step out of line soon enough. I see tribal groups and religious authorities as a big positive in Iraq, because these are natural power structures that would keep order amidst the chaos. Take the way the clerics of Fallujah managed to control the looting and violence during the chaotic phase Iraq went through.
I think that a neutral party such as the UN ought to provide a voluntary framework for settling disputes between fractious parties until the country settles down and it can be rebuilt politically from the smallest structures up ... not from the top down as in the US plans.
_____________________________________________________________________
Howarde --
*sigh* You are a tad misinformed, my friend.
"Yet, it appears that there is going to be an armed conflict if the U.S. remains awhile, and a larger one if the U.S. leaves."
That of course is a matter of opinion. You are assuming the conclusion before the US has even left, the way they want you to.
Your statement that Saddam killed Iraqis at a faster rate than the US is also incorrect. Given that the US *admits* to killing between 1500 to 2500 insurgents a month ... and given that Saddam ruled for +- 24 years ... we have a projected kill rate of a minimum of 432 000 Iraqis over the same span, excluding civilians of course. And don't forget that many of Saddam's 300 000 killed were up in arms against him as well. I don'r even mention the infants killed during the period of sanctions that you already have on your conscience. Yet you feel the urge to moralise regarding the US being beneficial to Iraq ... ?
"How much killing did Sadr's men do in Falloujah when he was in control there?"
Sadr never had anything to do with Fallujah. It was Sunni clerics in control there. Any killing on their part must be (a) counterbalanced against the thousands that the US killed on its latest rampage (b) be factually corroborated by witnesses and (c) be analysed for judicial correctness or lack thereof. As I understand it they still murder people in Texas prisons, no?
"I understand it was extensive."
Numbers, facts, please.
Conclusion? You are uninformed and making assumptions based upon what you have been conditioned to believe. Please prove me wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu, what do you think of today's news about the split between the moderate Shiite parties and SCIRI?
Link
It looks like there are actually quite a few moderate Shiites who don't want the religious clergy to control the government.
I am encouraged by this, but on the other hand, it appears that Sistani is using his influence in favor of religious extremists, which is not good.
-Neocon imperialist warmonger
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu What is the bottom line. What will it take to promote peace?
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
Circular,
I hope that this post answers some of your (and Bruno's) questions. I am already dreading the number of possible questions this post may raise! You didn't even keep your promise not to ask any more questions for a few days!
By the way, I have not found a solution yet to the question of chaos in comment posting that does not lead to shutting some people out. This section is the readers' domain. I guess I might just as well leave the readers to sort it out within the constraints of relevancy and decency. Does this sound fair? Even if I do not contribute to this corner, I will read every post, including those by "not"-Paul Edwards and royalty.
Bob Griffin,
This post is not a substitute to our intended religious debate, but it may serve as useful background to any future discussion of religion (and politics).
Boy, ask and ye shall be given. I’m totally confused now.
Abu’s description reminds me of this sad plaint from Faiza in AFamilyinBaghdad, a few days ago:
"People are clashing, and hating each other, and everyone thinks himself right…
Some see in the new Iraqi Army and Police Force the nucleus of a new Iraqi State, giving hope of independence, and the departure of the occupation forces from Iraq, while others see them as the dirty, traitorous faces who deserve to die by trapped cars.
Some see in the coming elections a nucleus of a new Iraqi state, and the eviction of the occupation, spending his efforts to participate, and give, while others see it as a dirty conspiracy, a collaboration with the occupation, to keep it here, and issue threats and death against those who want to take part in the elections, candidates or voters.
Some see in Fallujah a jihad, its characters heroes, and some see them as a bunch of thieves and murderers.
Some see in the Shia’at Referencing Council the wisdom and calmness in dealing with the occupation forces, waiting for the right time to evict them, and some others see in the Shia’a a group in collusion with the occupation, who deserve to die…
Some see the Sunnis as lone, striving fighters against occupation, while some see them as fools, wanting to re-establish their single-handed management of rule, or destroy the country, in the pretext of refusing occupation…
This is the reality of the matter here… the scene has various images, and each faction sticks to an image of these, fighting for it, thinking himself on the right side.
All right, we all agree on disliking the occupation…we all want to build a new Iraq… but how?"
This is from Abu is puzzling and alarming:
"But generally, most of Baghdad is so thoroughly mixed that it would be extremely difficult to think of the people there being involved in any sectarian or civil war with any sound degree of rationality. It is just not possible. As I write this, I think of my own neighbors – Sunnis and Shiites all around! People used to make many jokes about it… on both sides (but not during the past year! Those jokes simply disappeared! You may find this odd… but this is more worrying to me than all the "expert" analyses I read!)."
And he said this in the last Blog:
"Someone is trying very hard indeed to stir sectarian strife in Iraq and transform it to an Iraqi-Iraqi conflict."
Perhaps it would be interesting for omniscient readers to describe pluralistic societies they know about that work? I mean, Abu makes it sound as though Iraq could have accommodated religious and political diversity, if only someone had thought to disarm it after they invaded it?
Circular
One word: Sarajevo
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/9604/10/index.html
Yes, it is difficult to understand the situation as it is today, but would it have been better if Saddam were still in power, and looking forward to the day when his sons took over the reins of government?
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF UNITY IN IRAQIs the lawlessness at an acceptable level for most Iraqis or will it get worse? Can it be overcome should the U.S. Forces leave the country or will someone just as tyrannical replace Saddam's rule? Who would be the voice for law and order in Iraq?
Would your opinion about conditions change if you or one of your family were the next victim of some of the lawless elements?
We learn a lot from your writing, Abu, and I'm sure most of your readers are saddened by the plight of both you, your family, and countrymen. Yet, it appears that there is going to be an armed conflict if the U.S. remains awhile, and a larger one if the U.S. leaves. You do not see the Iraqis fighting each other, but I do not believe this is a rational view. They're already doing so, and Saddam was killing them at a faster rate before (not that that justifies more killing). How much killing did Sadr's men do in Falloujah when he was in control there? I understand it was extensive.
Circular to Abu
Looks like no-one is interested in information, they just want to argue.
I'll be overseas for a couple of weeks.
Thanks for letting me participate in your Blog. It's been educational and entertaining!
Howarde,
I'm afraid I don't think you are learning much from my writings. Most of your statements contradict what I have been saying for months.
As to my own personal loss, I find your statement a bit inconsiderate. I assure you that I have suffered losses that I am not prepared to share publicly but the pain of those losses will remain with me to the end of my life. I am talking about many other people's losses which many Americans unfortunately do not seem to have the capacity to feel.
Regarding the present post, I have outlined the reasons behind my conclusions at some length. It is not sufficient to state that you "do not believe this is a rational view", implying that it is an irrational view!
Iraqis are not killing each other, and definitely not over sectarian issues (yet). Innocent people are being killed by three groups of people: Pure criminals, terrorists and the US army (and affiliated forces). All these are the responsibility of your administration in leading to the present chaos though mismanagement and incompetence. This is what I have been saying for months.
Finally, I also assure you that Sadr did not at any time have any men in Fallujah neither was he in control of the city at any time.
As the underlying reasons for your opinion of the matter are evidently all incorrect, are you prepared to reconsider your position? Or are all my efforts futile?
Abu Khaleel --
Thank you for your informative post. I tend to agree with your sentiments. I come from South Africa, and we have a pretty damn diverse culture. It is not just white and black, there are Indians and Coloureds that see themselves often as different groups to "blacks". Also, even between whites there are divisions based on whether they are English or Afrikaans speaking. And between blacks similar tribal differences often arise - Zulu and Xhosa for example.
The reality is, our country could have been a bloodbath on a vast scale had the hot heads prevailed. As it stands now, yes, there are many tensions. Yes there are laws and positions that are seen as unfair by both blacks and whites. But we all tend to get along, because in the real world, it is more important to do business, to have fun with friends and family and to mind one's own hobbies than to pick fights. The fact is, one has to compromise to achieve peace. All sides have to accept that they will not get all they want, only some of it. I do believe that Iraqis are more than intelligent enough to achieve these compromises, despite the difficult positions they are in.
What I fear is that outside forces (read US) will try to accentuate divisions between Iraqis as a way to divide and rule by pitting each group against the other. Other outside forces like Al Qaeda might also profit from a civil war, because they would use it as cover to fight the Americans and as a way to justify remaining in Iraq because their skills in killing would be valuable. Not to mention the use of Iraqis as cannon fodder.
I do believe that if the US leaves, Iraqis themselves will be able to sort out any foreign elements that step out of line soon enough. I see tribal groups and religious authorities as a big positive in Iraq, because these are natural power structures that would keep order amidst the chaos. Take the way the clerics of Fallujah managed to control the looting and violence during the chaotic phase Iraq went through.
I think that a neutral party such as the UN ought to provide a voluntary framework for settling disputes between fractious parties until the country settles down and it can be rebuilt politically from the smallest structures up ... not from the top down as in the US plans.
Howarde --
*sigh* You are a tad misinformed, my friend.
"Yet, it appears that there is going to be an armed conflict if the U.S. remains awhile, and a larger one if the U.S. leaves."
That of course is a matter of opinion. You are assuming the conclusion before the US has even left, the way they want you to.
Your statement that Saddam killed Iraqis at a faster rate than the US is also incorrect. Given that the US *admits* to killing between 1500 to 2500 insurgents a month ... and given that Saddam ruled for +- 24 years ... we have a projected kill rate of a minimum of 432 000 Iraqis over the same span, excluding civilians of course. And don't forget that many of Saddam's 300 000 killed were up in arms against him as well. I don'r even mention the infants killed during the period of sanctions that you already have on your conscience. Yet you feel the urge to moralise regarding the US being beneficial to Iraq ... ?
"How much killing did Sadr's men do in Falloujah when he was in control there?"
Sadr never had anything to do with Fallujah. It was Sunni clerics in control there. Any killing on their part must be (a) counterbalanced against the thousands that the US killed on its latest rampage (b) be factually corroborated by witnesses and (c) be analysed for judicial correctness or lack thereof. As I understand it they still murder people in Texas prisons, no?
"I understand it was extensive."
Numbers, facts, please.
Conclusion? You are uninformed and making assumptions based upon what you have been conditioned to believe. Please prove me wrong.
Abu, what do you think of today's news about the split between the moderate Shiite parties and SCIRI?
Link
It looks like there are actually quite a few moderate Shiites who don't want the religious clergy to control the government.
I am encouraged by this, but on the other hand, it appears that Sistani is using his influence in favor of religious extremists, which is not good.
-Neocon imperialist warmonger
Abu What is the bottom line. What will it take to promote peace?
<< Home
![Listed on Blogwise](http://www.blogwise.com/buttons/banner_blogwise.gif)