A Battle Between Democracy And Terror

Friday, December 24, 2004
By: Tashbih Sayyed

Iraq's insurgents represent the ugliest face of Islamist terror. They know that if Iraqi elections are allowed to go ahead as planned, it will be a major blow to their world wide agenda – establishment of universal Khilafah, an Islamist theocracy. And they are determined to stop it from happening. One of these Islamist groups is Al-Qaeda linked Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna (the Army of the Supporters of Sunna) which has claimed responsibility for the explosion that ripped through a U.S. base in Mosul on Tuesday (December 21, 2004), killing 24 people. The dead included U.S. military personnel, U.S. contractors, foreign national contractors and Iraqi army. Claiming responsibility the Ansar al-Sunna Army said the attack was a "martyrdom operation."
Ansar al-Sunna is believed to be a fundamentalist group representing Al-Qaeda that wants to turn Iraq into an Islamic state like Afghanistan's former Taliban regime. The same Sunni group claimed responsibility for beheading 12 Nepalese hostages and other recent attacks in Mosul. Reconfirming the world opinion that the war on terror is in fact a battle between democracy and Islamism, the Ansar al-Sunna, in a circular on their Internet site, argues that any government in a Muslim country that does not govern in accordance with the Shari'a (Islamic Law) is an infidel. It calls on believers to stay away from the poling stations and warns that the mujahideen will strike the polling stations by force.

Iraq's Arab neighbours being Sunnis themselves are also campaigning for the postponement by trying to scare the Americans into believing that Shiite victory in next month's elections will bring Iraq closer to Tehran, forming a "Super Iran" that could change the face of the Middle East. Jordan's King Abdullah, a Sunni Muslim, said Iraq's elections could lead to the establishment of a hard-line Shiite regime based on the model in Iran, a country the United States accuses of sponsoring terrorism and trying to build nuclear weapons.

President George W. Bush seems to disagree with King Abdullah. Iraq watchers know that views among Iraqi Shiites toward Iran range from hate to devotion. Despite 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people being Shiite, many harbor resentment toward Iran over the bloody 1980-88 war between the countries in which 1 million people died. Many Iraqis also accuse Iran of sponsoring this country's rampant insurgency. Experts believe that any postponement will only strengthened the hands of insurgency and empower radical Islam.

President Bush is aware of the threat inherent in postponement. He is convinced that even a modest success by these Islamists would be disastrous for the freedoms, reversing the democratic reforms across the Muslim world. Islamist success will also turn the Middle East into a breeding ground for the Wahhabi terrorism. That's why he has been vigorously advocating that the election must go ahead as planned. "The terrorists will fail, the elections will go forward, and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and traditions of its people" he said.

But the vital fact that needs to be taken into account is that it is not just anti-Americanism that is fueling the insurgency; Historical hatred of Shiites is also fanning the fires of resistance. Iraqi insurgency is basically anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Shiite jihadi Sunnis, a greater portion of which is composed of Wahhabi Islamists like Zarqawi. And any government that is controlled by Sunnis in Iraq will be just as radical as the Taliban were in Afghanistan. "The insurgency is now driven mainly by Islamists," says Kenneth Katzman, senior Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service. Wahhabis do not consider Shiites as Muslims.

In their eyes, Shia are a product of a Jew mind. Wahhabis believe that until Abd Allah bin Saba, a converted Jew from San'a began to agitate against the third caliph, Uthman around 650 A.D., perfect concord prevailed among the Muslims. Radical Islamist say that after the murder of Uthman in 656 A.D., Abd Allah bin Saba spread the views about Ali bin Abu Talib -the Shiite's most reverend Imam - having been the wasi, the legatee or the executor of the will of prophet Muhammad and thus became the founder of the Shia who retrospectively turned Ali into the legitimate successor of Prophet Muhammad.

Wahhabis are certain that Shiites, being a majority, will rise to power as a result of any elections in Iraq and will in all probability be pro-Western. They are also convinced that a Shiite governed Iraq will not support any campaign to destroy Israel. They are also aware that their Saudi brand Islamist state is an anathema to Shiite faith. Wahhabi establishment knows that Shiite Iraq will be a hurdle in the way of an Islamist state that is intrinsically anti-West and anti-Semitic. A recent Abu Musab al-Zarqawi audiotape called on Iraq's Sunni Muslims to slaughter their Shiite countrymen, claiming that they are not true Muslims and are "the ears and the eyes of the Americans."

Recent Shiite actions and pronouncements add to the Wahhabi fears. On hearing of plunder of Iraqi museum, Sa'id Kamal Din al-Mukadas al-Ruweifi, a follower of the al-Hawza Supreme Clerical Council in Najaf and the arbiter of Islamic law for about half of Baghdad's Shiites, called on millions of Shiites to return loot plundered from the Baghdad National Museum. He also gave museum officials 22 Torah scrolls and manuscripts and said, "True Islam respects other people's belief in God. Muslims respect others, whether they are Christians or Jews, as long as they respect Islam."

Ruweifi said Jews once thrived in Iraq. "We knew many of them. They were traders and lived and worked in the al-Jorjia district in Baghdad. We had nothing against them. In Iraq a person's religion does not matter too much to the people."

Magnanimity, or at least caution, colors the rhetoric of moderate Shia loyal to the al-Hawza sect and its leader, Syed Muhammed al-Sistani. Preaching at a mosque, Qassen al-Tahi, a chief al-Hawza member, called on the thousands of Shiite faithful in attendance to follow the peaceful path of the prophet Mohammed. Instead of whipping the crowd into a fury, al-Tahi preached patience and tolerance. "The Americans are civilized and admired in many respects," he said, advising followers to respect the Americans.

Whereas Saddam used the Palestine question ceaselessly to win support across the Arab world, Israel-Arab dispute seems to be of little importance to most Shiites. Observers have noted that Shiite leadership in Iraq does not talk about a "Zionist plot" or about Israel. They have also observed that in Sadr City, the Shiites seem wary of Palestinians who glorified Saddam. According to reports, hundreds or thousands of Palestinians were kicked out of Iraq as soon as Baghdad fell. Talking about Jews, Ruweifi said: "It is their country too." He stressed that Jews who fled Baghdad pogroms for Israel in the late 1940s and early 1950s should be welcomed back. He said, "If elections bring freedom and people want to come back that is their choice. They are our brothers; we must respect all the minorities here."

The insurgent activities indicate that it is not just directed at US led coalition forces but is also aimed at murdering Shiites in great numbers – the message is clear, Shiite government will not be accepted. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi seems to agree with this assessment as he said, "The message shows their (insurgents) resolve to destroy the unity of this country and to wage a sectarian war."

The documents seized by US authorities confirm that the Wahhabi insurgents have already started implementing their plan to provoke sectarian and civil war in Iraq. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt attributed the document to Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected Jordanian militant with al-Qaeda ties. Brig. Gen. Kimmitt said, "There is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come into this country and spark civil war, breed sectarian violence and try to expose fissures in the society.

A part of the document reads: "If we succeed in dragging them [the Shia] into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of the Shia." According to Reuters, chief spokesman for Iraq's then U.S. governor Paul Bremer, Dan Senor said the document proposed attacks on shrines and Shia leaders. Mr. Senor said: "The document ... talks about a strategy of provoking violence targeted at the Shia, the Shia leaders in the hope that it would provoke reprisals against other ethnic groups in the country, all focused on provoking ethnic, sectarian warfare."

Shiite political figures cautioned that the insurgency is aimed at scaring people away from voting. "They want to make a civil war. These are Shiite cities, but the attackers will not have an effect on elections," said Ammar Dakhl al-Assaidi, a spokesman for the Shiite fundamentalist Dawa party. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told reporters he had offered 100,000 men from his Shiite party's former militia to help protect polling stations and was awaiting an answer.

Recent attacks on Shiite cities have underlined the fact that there are only two options for Iraq today; to have elections on schedule that will empower Shiites or the postponement of elections giving Sunnis a chance to influence the outcome of a future election and turn the country into a breeding ground of militant Islam.

It is of vital importance, in the interest of a durable peace in the region, to weigh the consequences of all actions carefully. The governments of neighboring Arab countries share the Wahhabi ethos. They too are campaigning for the postponement of the elections. King Abdullah of Jordan, during his recent visit to Washington tried his utmost to scare the US into believing that if the election were held according to schedule, an anti-American Shiite government will come into power. There are indications that the government of Saudi Arabia is spending millions of Dollars through PR firms to influence the US public opinion against a Shiite dominated regime in Iraq. Unless the world understands the real agenda of the Arab neighbors of Iraq, there are chances that mistakes will be made, jeopardizing many more lives.

It must be remembered that all of the Arab countries have Sunni governments and they also feel the pressure of Sunni Arab street that has historically been anti-American. The Saudi Petro-Dollars have worked to make the situation much more critical - the whole Arab society, during the last couple of decades, has been hijacked by Wahhabi dominated clergy, successfully transforming the Sunni Arab population into a motivated, devoted and committed jihadi force. This society can never support a pro-West government in Iraq.

Wahhabiism's doctrine of Jihad is faith-bound to establish an Islamist empire by destroying the open societies since they are based on Judeo-Christian values of tolerance and pluralism. Since Wahhabism cannot accept a system that believes in the separation of the Church and State, any hope of winning its support for the cause of openness as we know and understand in the West is futile.

In my view, West's fear about Shiites is only based on its very recent experience with Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran. Whereas, it is debatable as to how long the dogmatic Mullahs in Iran will remain in power, there is no doubt that Wahhabis who reject the separation of the Church and State, will always be there to threaten the free societies. We must not forget that true Shiite philosophy as represented by Ayatollah Sistani, rejects the theory of the unification of Church and the State and opposes Ayatollah Khomeini's doctrine of the rule of the religious elders. Ayatollah Khomeini was a proponent of a doctrine called velayat-i-faqih. This doctrine demanded that governments with authority over Shiites should be run by religious clerics in accordance with Islamic law.

A majority of Shiite religious scholars disagreed with Ayatollah Khomeini's doctrine and considered it an aberration. They believed in a traditional position called quietism. Quitism held that clerics shouldn't get involved in day-to-day affairs and instead should serve as an authority independent from politics. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani espouses this traditional approach, preaching that religion should hold itself aloof from the state and shun involvement in worldly affairs. "His emphasis is on ensuring government accountability and the protection of religion. He appears to be continuing in this tradition. He favors an Islamic state, but not a theocracy as in neighboring Iran. Sistani has said that no law in Iraq should conflict with Islamic principles, and he wants Islam to be recognized in law as the religion of the majority of Iraqis.

However, he has not promoted an official role for Islamic clerics in Iraq's new government." Sistani supports an Islamic state that is compatible with elections, freedom of religion, and other civil liberties. Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote in the weekly standard, "The point is, you judge a Shiite cleric first and foremost by his writings, his lectures to his students, the younger clerics he has trained, and his mentors. By all of these criteria, Grand Ayatollah Sistani is a "good" mullah. There are two big intellectual currents in modern Shiite clerical thought. One leads to Khomeini and the other leads to clerics like Sistani. There are certainly overlapping areas between the two schools of thought—the place of women in post-Saddam Iraq will likely be a fascinating subject—but on the role of the people as the final arbiter of politics, there is very little reason to doubt Sistani's commitment to democracy. Clerics like Sistani may use high-volume moral suasion, they may suggest that a certain view is sinful, but they understand that clerics cannot become politicians without compromising their religious mission."

Reul added, "Having Iranian blood and family in the Islamic Republic surely has made Sistani more sensitive to the pitfalls of clerical dictatorship. Sistani is a true marja'-e taqlid—"a source of emulation"—the highest stature that any Shiite cleric can have. The Iranian revolution has done a superb job of deconstructing and diminishing the clerical educational system in Iran. The Islamic Republic now produces only national clerics, whose traditional juridical eminence barely extends beyond the confines of Iran's religious schools. Sistani is the last great transnational Shiite divine. His eminence easily reaches into his motherland. The relationship between Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the other senior clerics of Najaf with Iran's mullahs is a complicated work in progress.

American officials would be wise not to sell Sistani short in his inevitable competition with Iran's hard-core clergy. The Iranians have not yet let loose hell against the Americans in Iraq even though logistically they probably could. One reason for this is surely Sistani, of whom Iran's ruling clerics must be careful and respectful. As in the matter of democracy in Iraq, Sistani may again become one of America's most effective allies."

Another factor that will prevent Iraqi Shiites to go in Iran's direction is that they are not a monolithic force. A good number of them are secularists. And those who are religious are divided among various religious authorities who preach a range of views toward separation of religion and state. "Iraq experts say there are differences in religious philosophy, which are commonly reflected through adherence to various religious leaders, or ayatollahs, both living and dead. One key point of disagreement: those who believe religion and government should remain in separate spheres, and those who believe that the state should be ruled by Islamic clerics according to religious principles. Shiites are also divided by region, class, tribal affiliation, and ethnicity. Most Shiites are Arabs, but some Kurds, Turkomen, and others are also adherents.

Experts believe that the US will be able to influence the new government, especially in the drawing up of a new constitution next year. And if Shiites are convinced that the Washington is not trying to advance the Sunni agenda under the Saudi influence, they will listen to the US. Being surrounded by hostile Sunni Arabs, it will always be in the Shiite interest to have the US on their side. And so long as they will want Washington to be their ally, they will work to have a pluralistic government.

The most important thing at this juncture in Iraqi history is to make sure that Shiite must not be made to feel that the US, has once again abandoned them to appease its Sunni Arab allies. I am certain that a Shiite society convinced of the US sincerity for the establishment of a just democratic social structure in Iraq will be a more dependable asset for the US than a Wahhabi Iraq, driven by its anti-American and anti-Semitic jihadi doctrine based on Dhimmitude. A Shiite Iraq that views the US in a favorable light will certainly be a positive influence on the region.

If the free world has to emerge a victor in this war between democracy and terror, they will have to learn to look beyond the immediate future. They will have to recognize that the immediate tomorrow will remain full of difficulties and pitfalls. Whoever forms the government after the elections will have to find a way to establish a socio-political environment in which people can feel safe and secure. To attain this objective they will have to strike some kind of a deal with some of the insurgent groups. In order to achieve this without jeopardizing the democratic process they will certainly need the US help and understanding.

Washington will have to understand that a Shiite government which is accepted by Iraqis as legitimate will work as a bulwark against the rising tide of Wahhabism. And for any Iraqi government to be accepted by the people, it will have to succeed in providing the basic security to them. Iraqis satisfied with the security and safety will have less reason to pressure the government for the withdrawal of the US. Once free of the public attention, the US can find a way to remain in-charge without being so obvious. But to achieve these objectives, it is vital that the elections be held as scheduled.