'What is so radical about Iraq's rebel cleric?'

[Aidoneus]

Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi: What is so radical about Iraq's rebel cleric?
Misrepresenting Sadr's policies is an insult to all who oppose foreign occupation
24 August 2004

The standoff in Najaf has cast the spotlight on the rebel Shia cleric Muqtada Sadr. While the Western media cannot resist calling him "radical", it is in fact very difficult to find any basis for this description.

He has been consistent in his staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq. "There can be no politics under occupation, no freedom under occupation, no democracy under occupation," he said this month. What is so radical about that? If his Mehdi Army were patrolling and bombing London or New York, I would be astonished to find media descriptions of US and British resistance as "radical".

His opposition to foreign occupation cannot be explained away as support for Saddam Hussein, who persecuted the Shias so ruthlessly. Sadr and his family were vehemently opposed to the dictator and his regime, and for this they paid a heavy price - Sadr's uncle was executed in 1980, and his father and two brothers were shot dead in February 1999.

Although Sadr's opposition to occupation has been consistent, he only turned to armed resistance more than a year after the invasion. His sermons previously called for non-violent resistance.

While death and insecurity reigned after Baghdad fell, Sadr supporters took control of many aspects of life in the Shia sectors, appointing clerics to mosques, guarding hospitals, collecting garbage, operating orphanages, and supplying food to Iraqis hit by the hardships of war. I cannot imagine anything less "radical" than collecting garbage especially since the occupation authorities failed in their responsibility under international law to provide such basic and vital services.

--snip--

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=554521

[Aidoneus]

1. offered up without a comment from me just yet..

a 2nd segment, from the same piece:--

When Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed the Iraqi Governing Council, Sadr did not turn to violence, but instead announced the formation of an alternative administration to those he saw as handpicked by occupiers. When coalition forces closed his Al Hawza newspaper in March, Sadr's supporters staged peaceful protests. And peaceful protests followed the arrest in April of his senior aide Mustafa al-Yaqubi, and threats to arrest Sadr himself.

The response from the occupation forces was armed and fatal for numerous Iraqi civilians, after which the protests turned violent. Sadr proclaimed his peaceful means had become "a losing card" and "we should seek other ways... terrorise your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over its violations". Bremer, whose administration undertook an illegal war against Iraq, started calling him an "outlaw".

Even through armed resistance to occupation, Sadr has stuck to well-defined limits. He has denied involvement in car bombings and assassinations; he denounced the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Until their current involvement in US onslaughts followers were urged not to attack Iraqi security forces; he is opposed to the taking of journalists as hostages, and last month he condemned the beheading of foreign workers: "There is no religion or religious law that punishes by beheading. True, they are your enemies and occupiers, but this does not justify cutting off their heads."

Sadr's eventual use of armed resistance has certainly not been viewed as "radical" by his compatriots. In a poll conducted by the CPA in June, 81 per cent of Iraqis said their opinion of the cleric was "much better" or "better" after his first uprising than before.

--snip--

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=554521

[Union Thug]

12. I'm curious about the ongoing disinformation campaign

Besides the threatened journalists, I have read conflicting reports of al-Sadr's support base. According to two reports in as many days on NPR, his has no support beyond his 'brainwashed' militia. However, according to other sources, he's had thousands of supporters offering to become human shields.

I think the propaganda machine is in full swing. Tread discrimatively.

[Warpy]

13. I tend to trust some of the bloggers out of Iraq

Salam Pax described them as "thugs, thugs, thugs." That was his last posting, back in May. Supposedly he's on hiatus, but we all wish he'd check in, just to let us know he's still around.

I have the sneaking suspicion that if the cowboy Marines had just been held back, the Iraqis themselves would've taken care of that punk.

[tuckessee]

16. You're right

They'd deal with "that punk" the same way they dealt with his father.

[Aidoneus]

19. good response..

and also his brothers, his wife's father, much of their families, the 68 al-Hakim martyrs of a rival family, any of the people around them, etc.. "They" know just how to deal with people like him, which is a great deal why Sadr and those around him are as they are.

[skooooo]

2. umm..he's not anglo saxon...that's one thing!

Pretty radical of him, wouldn't you say?

[DrWeird]

3. He's against the US!

He's! He's! He's unamerican!

He even had a newspaper that spoke against the US!

Can you imagine? We shut down his newspaper that spoke against the ruling, occupying force and then he goes and forms a militia to fight us!

The nerve!

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

4. Knowing the working definition of "radical" as I do,

I would say that he is anyway, for he selfishly does not submit himself before the interests of Western finance. My slight distaste for the title itself, this soberly presents a series of sound points.

[mom cat]

5. Radical means "getting to the root of". Sadr is a true radical.

The label that I detest is firebrand. It conveys the image of hot headed and belittles his commitment to real democracy.

[Djinn]

6. Had he been in Afghanistan

doing the EXACT same thing using the exact same methods while fighting the occupying Russians we would have called him a freedom fighter and given him weapons and training. funny how things can change.

[sangh0]

7. Answer

Sadr believes that the government should be run by muslim clerics according to Shariah, which would make women the property of their men.

I cannot imagine anything less "radical" than collecting garbage especially since the occupation authorities failed in their responsibility under international law to provide such basic and vital services.

Then you might want to look at Hamas and Hezbollah. They pick up trash also.

[RummyTheDummy]

24. Why does every culture have to conform

to ours? Such an arrogant outlook.

[maxsolomon]

8. if he's predicting the appearance of the mahdi

as a means of inspiring his army to get themselves killed in his name, that's pretty radical.

of course, i only READ this. i have no idea if he really is telling them that the islamic messiah is about to appear in iraq.

for all i know, he's the iraqi george washington.

[K-W]

9. But is that particularly radical for his position?

Just being a muslim makes him radical by most US standards, the question is, compared to other people in his culture, in his position, is he radical? Or is it just a way to marginalize him.

[sangh0]

10. No, for a radical opinion, it's not too radical

and the majority of Muslims are truly moderate, don't want their govt to be run by clerics, do not consider their wives to be property, believe that jihad is a spiritual struggle, and are tolerant of other peoples. IOW, Sadr, by both relative and absolute measures, is a radical.

[K-W]

11. There is no such thing as an absolute measure.

It all depends on context. I think there is a very valid point to the fact that his being labled as a radical, which may be valid, is still damaging to the rather non-radical act of defying the US occupation.

[CornPuff_McGruff]

27. schooled!

You spelled *labeled wrong.

[DrWeird]

15. But is he a radical compared to...

your average rebel leader.

[Aidoneus]

18. that was the Imam Khumayni who said that, actually

among others.. that is, that the 'Greater Jihad' was a spiritual struggle (for reference). Funny, he's usually lumped in with those "un-moderate"/"radical"/"fundamentalists" you don't seem to like. Sadr(HA) is indeed intolerant of the right to rape and plunder their hood with impunity; if that makes for a "radical", or whatever other epitaph, then that becomes a compliment. At any rate, I find that particular vocabulary question not as important as certain others.

Sadr believes that the government should be run by muslim clerics according to Shariah, which would make women the property of their men.

If I ever want somebody around to dumb something down to the most improper simplicity, I know where to call you. That's the grand plan? Struggle and sacrifice in the best and worst examples of Ali(pbuh) & Husayn(RA) to spite the oppressors and occupyers ... to put the chicks in their place? That's the big mission? These terribly ridiculous views are an unecessary burden and a great barrier against any decent level of basic understanding (if such is even a concern). I suggest that you read up on the subject before speaking on it again. There are some texts I could suggest if you would like a few pointers.

Then you might want to look at Hamas and Hezbollah. They pick up trash also.

My feelings on the former are divided (very much black and white depending on which specific matter is brought up), though the latter are an excellent example to emulate (though hopefully the result arrives in a shorter time than in their case;--that does not seem to be much of an issue as other corresponding matters have here acted in fastforward by comparison, so it is hard to predict a time frame for comperable results).

[sangh0]

21. The use of dishonorable tactics shows the weakness of your argument

If you had a reasonable argument to make, you wouldn't make such "liberal" usage of rhetorical tactics that are typically considered less than honorable.

"that was the Imam Khumayni who said that, actually among others.. that is, that the 'Greater Jihad' was a spiritual struggle (for reference). Funny, he's usually lumped in with those "un-moderate"/"radical"/"fundamentalists" you don't seem to like.

Since I did not say who said that, but only pointed out that moderate Muslims agree with it, and since I've NEVER called Imam Khumayni a radical, the only "lumping in" going on here is the way you've lumped me in with the people who think ALL Muslims are radicals.

Sadr(HA) is indeed intolerant of the right to rape and plunder their hood with impunity; if that makes for a "radical", or whatever other epitaph, then that becomes a compliment. At any rate, I find that particular vocabulary question not as important as certain others.

Here you use a "straw man" argument, because no one here has called Sadr a radical because he opposes rape and plunder. In doing so, you managed to avoid addressing the real reasons that I gave for Sadr's being a radical. He wants a theocracy, and he believes in the oppression of women.

My feelings on the former are divided...

After all, killing civilians is not so radical these days, I guess.

:shrug:

[Aidoneus]

22. A less than honourable tactic would be me calling you a 'Poopie Head'

And I was not considering bringing that big-gun out until now. Look what you have made me do! ...moving on.

1) I know, I just thought it would be interesting to point out.

2) The primary source of the various epitaphs is, at the true heart of things, the lack of subservience to certain interests. You would have to clarify the definition of the last comment in this series, providing examples as well. Bonus credit if you throw in a reference to Shaheedha Bint al-Huda, Amina Haider as-Sadr, but since that doesn't help your argument I am not expecting it.

There is far more to the matter than the ridiculously oversimplified cliches typically dropped on the subject, far more important issues that better belong in the foreground of reference. I would suggest a study of the real influences of those at work. For starters, such as the works by his wife's father and aunt, the former being one giant pillar of the Islamic movements in Iraq in general and Sadrist movements in particular, and the short stories and bio of the latter for a truer perspective on relations of women that are considered.

The former's thoughts on Islamic governance, philosophy, political economy and social affairs are laid out in the Iqtisaduna and Falsafatuna ('Our Economics' and 'Our Philosophy', respectively), and a great deal of other pieces which have been examined and built upon by alims and writers since then. The works of the 1st Martyr Sadr continue to hold a great influence over the dominant and "radical" movements, though not exclusively so of course. In images that adorn Sadrist neighborhoods and demonstrations, for example, the beloved figures on display include the martyr Sayyid Mohammed Baqir as-Sadr, the martyr Sayyid Mohammed Sadiq as-Sadr, and their modern successor Sayyid Muqtada as-Sadr.

At any rate, I consider the helicopters and tanks far more oppressive, and frankly more relevant, than whatever even the most unevolved caveman could do at this point.

3) On the last matter, that is correct.. but not what I meant. On that matter:--Generally speaking in dominant circles, the permissibility of "killing civilians" or thousands of others is considered very conditional and potentially acceptable after suitable spin control, depending on the respective nationalities of the killer & killed.

Anyway, some of the more well known, if a minority on the whole, acts of the sort in the particular case of the armed wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas happen to be the black or white--whichever is the opposite of 'favour', I was never too clear on which was which..--part that I made reference to. There are other facets that I also find relevant and hold in a different view.

At any rate, I'm surprised you didn't take on the other comment in that paragraph, which was more interesting in my eyes both for its content and clarity of expression. The last part in the parenthesis may not have been readily decipherable due to a few shortcuts to specific references taken in order to keep the length down, but I would think that at least the "excellent"/"emulate" bit would've inevitably raised an eyebrow or ire. :shrug:

(edit in the event you read this before I finish additions: added a bit to point 2)

[sangh0]

33. Actually, you did

But that's not a big one.

And no matter how much you know about Islamic philosophy, Sadr's use of violence, his belief in a theocracy and the role of women, and the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, as well as other factors, make him a radical.

And no matter how many innocent people have been killed by others, including the US government, Sadr has done the same, and is a radical, just as the US govt is a radical government.

[Aidoneus]

36. a bit late in reply, and this is just a couple minor points from me

You ignored the bulk of what I had written before, so I guess there's not much more to discuss here. I too often leave things unanswered, so I'll put this little bit forward anyway.

I do thank you for making a display of the sort of aspersions mentioned in the original. Claims from the sympathetic angle are one thing, but active illustrations of the approach spoken of tend to drive the point home better. At any rate, I again don't contest the "radical" label, knowing as I do what it means. However because of what I understand, I can say that many are greatly mistaken on certain matters, but I can hardly blame you personally too much for it. A thousand repetitions often makes for one truth, and the narrow set of cliches is pretty much what can be found in "western liberal" circles these days on the subject, among others.

For the other point. Sadr(HA) has NOT "done the same"--I don't see Jaysh al-Mahdi members lining up on my street, picking out buildings to later test out the formula of Ch8C6H2(NO2)8 + Hg(CNO)2 = X, X likely being ". . . a pile of ruined masonry, some bits of flesh . . .", etc, of course.

That is all for now, I have a difficult choice between Plissken on the one channel, Interview with the Vampire on the other, and a txt on the cell to go for a drive as a 3rd pole. Indecision often has a bad effect on my rational ability, so it is best that I end this for the night.

on later edit: so nothing so major is left hanging, I chose Snake Plissken for the time being.. the drive can wait until he pushes the button, and somebody peels me off the floor from my usual reaction to that scene.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Wolf]

14. Our radical American pResident and his radical administration...

probably just told the media that the should refer to Al Sadr as a radical Muslim cleric. It's part of a propaganda campaign to demonize Al Sadr, Muslims, and the insurgents.

The Merikan public can sleep easy knowing that we are fighting an evil Radical Muslim cleric and his insurgent followers instead of a Holy man and the people who worship at his temple.

[Pastiche423]

17. Who would be our radical boogeyman

in Iraq, if not for Sadr?

We must always have a boogeyman.

Always.

[theboss]

20. Look at Iran

That's the kind of government Sadr wants.

I mean, I'm progressive so generally I am in favor of things like equal rights for women, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right of Israel to exist, etc. In my world view, opposition to such things is "radical."

But, maybe things have changed on the Left in the last few years. Maybe these sorts of things are okay now.

[Djinn]

23. the thing is boss it's not up to you

or George Bush or the people of the west - if the majority of Iraq want to vote for a Shiite cleric to run the country based in Sharia law it is NOT up to us to enforce our own standards

[theboss]

31. You would NEVER say that about a Western country

If the people in - I don't know - Canada suddenly decided to take away the right to vote from women, no progressive would dare say, "Oh, well, it's their right."

This is such a double standard by progressives; it's truly revolting. It's assumed that westerners want freedom, while brown-skinned people don't mind living under soul-crushing, oppressive regimes.

And do you really think that the situation in Iran developed by "voting?" Are you serious? The clerics decide what candidates get on the ballots and can overturn elections if the wrong people win. This has been THE story in the Middle East for the last five or six years and no one in the west seems to give a shit.

[Djinn]

34. that's right I want "brown skinned" people living under oppresion

offensive presumption much??

I said IF that's what is wanted by the majority of Iraqis (INCLUDING the women, sorry I presumed that goes without saying) and the thing is many women in Iraq WANT a religious government, that often happens after years of brutal dictatorship because the churches (and btw I'm an atheist) are often the only ones left presenting an opposition.

Also you do know that in Iran women vote (yes the candidates are approved by clerics but it's not like NO "liberal" candidates run) and they OFTEN vote for the more extreme religious candidates it's NOT up to me to tell them not to.

[sandnsea]

28. The Greater Good

He has no concern about the greater good for all the people of Iraq and he's willing to use violence to force the entire country to his style of governance. That would be no different than if Ted Nugent decided to lead militia types in attacks against liberals. It's not the way.

What makes me angry is that these are the exact people Bush told us we had to go liberate. The Shiites in the south and the people living in poverty in Saddam City, now Sadr City. They should have known that Sadr and his followers weren't going to accept any shared government or American occupation. It's just one more lie on top of all the rest as far as I'm concerned. They never had any intention of liberating these people, the Bushies knew Sadr followers weren't interested in democracy.

[MadProphetMargin]

29. He's no more radical than Sam Adams was. n/t

[Laughing Mirror]

30. Those radical Iraqis, Sunni and Shiite alike, more than 80 percent of whom

are forming better and better opinions of Sadr. Only 2 percent, however, have favorable opinions of Allawi and Saddam. I doubt if George Bush would score much higher.

I guess Sadr, family and supporters know what the heads of the many-headed monster look like, be they the amiable countenance of a Saddam Hussein, an Iyad Allawi or a George W. Bush shoved in front of them. If Sadr is a radical, I'm a radical too.

[Djinn]

35. exactly

I don't like the guy's interpretation of Islam but if Iraqi's do then who am I to say they're wrong - and we actually havn't heard anything from HIS mouth saying he wants a Islamic theocratic government, that's been presumed by other people (many being paid by the US or the "sovereign" Iraqi government) I'm NOT going to make my judgements about him, his followers or his beliefs based on what the puppet govt or the US military or government tells me. It seems Ali al-Sistani is willing to deal with him and I'd take his word over most of the players in Iraq right now.

[Karenina]

32. Kick!

:kick: