Sadr backs down in Iraq

[cjmewett]

[ QUOTE ]
We are both correct, I just worded myself a bit unclearly maybe, at least you misunderstood me. I meant that the Irani clerics seek to have this role and he is an obstacle, not that he wants power in Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think I understand what you're saying. You mean to suggest that the Iranian government seeks to found a transnational Islamic community/superstate and Sadr somehow stands in the way of this? Because I think this is wrong. What makes you believe that the Iranian regime still aspires to this or finds it to be a reasonably likely outcome? Even if they did, why would Sadr be the biggest problem and not Turkey's secular parliamentary government, the house of Saud, Ba'athists in Iraq, or Sunni al-Qaeda?

I'm also confused by your lack of specificity when you refer to "the Irani clerics." Who? Which ones?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

And to add, they definately have tried to lead a universal revolution including sunnis, however when you look at it it hasn't been much of a success, sunnis does not constitute much of their international power base, it is mainly made up of shias and secularists.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are both correct, I just worded myself a bit unclearly maybe, at least you misunderstood me. I meant that the Irani clerics seek to have this role and he is an obstacle, not that he wants power in Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think I understand what you're saying. You mean to suggest that the Iranian government seeks to found a transnational Islamic community/superstate and Sadr somehow stands in the way of this? Because I think this is wrong. What makes you believe that the Iranian regime still aspires to this or finds it to be a reasonably likely outcome? Even if they did, why would Sadr be the biggest problem and not Turkey's secular parliamentary government, the house of Saud, Ba'athists in Iraq, or Sunni al-Qaeda?

I'm also confused by your lack of specificity when you refer to "the Irani clerics." Who? Which ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to miss that there are two dimensions to this, there is a struggle for political/territorical power and a struggle for religious power, it is possible to win the latter while losing the first and many players in this game would be satisfied with that. Iran has a president claiming authority over the physical territory of Iran and religous leaders claiming religious authority beyond its borders.

[blutarski]

[/ QUOTE ]How many states in the world are run by sharia law? Hint: approximately zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Waziristan section of Pakistan
Sudan's working on it
Somalia came within a hair's breadth of it.

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not a great analogy, because the two groups really were split along religious lines, but the India-Pakistan debacle provides some historical context.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't understand this analogy at all.

Pakistan was created out of thin air as the home to the subcontinent's Muslims. Entire populations relocated in order to populate the country. Then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan broke in a bloody war of secession, with considerable Indian involvement.

How does this analogize with the situation in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, I said it's not a great analogy, nor a direct analogy. But by splitting Iraq into three nations--presumably a Shia, Sunni, and Kurd nation--you will set up a de facto relocation debacle. Which still won't settle resentments between the religious sects regardless of an arbitrary border on a map.

Turkey isn't going to sit still for it, either.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many states in the world are run by sharia law? Hint: approximately zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Waziristan section of Pakistan
Sudan's working on it
Somalia came within a hair's breadth of it.

[/ QUOTE ]India has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by the Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia.

In 2003, a court in Malaysia ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may also divorce his wife via text messaging. (link)

Mickey Brausch

[Zeno]

Sharia law in Nigeria: BBC News Link

[ QUOTE ]
In 2003, a court in Malaysia ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may also divorce his wife via text messaging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not think humor a strong point of Sharia Law. Obviously I was wrong.

-Zeno

[cjmewett]

I suppose I shouldn't have made the sharia comment, as it's caused a derailment that has little to do with the topic at hand. I don't mean to suggest that there is no state on the planet where sharia influences the law or is implemented in some sense, but even states like Saudi Arabia and Iran which claim to have fully implemented sharia are not exactly "run" by it. We should also remember that a great many states implement aspects of sharia, while refraining from its application to criminal law.

Here's a good info link on sharia.

[iron81]

Washington Post

Cliffs notes: A National Intelligence Estimate (the summary conclusion of the US intelligence agencies) concludes the following:

[ QUOTE ]
- an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration

- But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

- The document emphasizes that while Al Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi conflict as the main source of violence and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has accused of supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a central focus.

[/ QUOTE ]