Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Sadrists don't like sight of lingerie in display window

'One recent day, an intimidating group of Sadrists entered a lingerie store in the movement's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City and brusquely told its owner to take bras and underwear out of his display window.

"I am not doing anything wrong," the owner lamented to an Associated Press reporter after the men left. Still, the owner, who refused to be identified for fear of being targeted, moved the offending items to the back of the shop. Nearby a cafe owner, similarly afraid to be identified, said Sadrists told him to keep teenagers out of his establishment or be shut down for corrupting youth.

Such intimidation by followers of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr imposing their version of Islamic restrictions had waned last year in areas they traditionally controlled, after Iraqi security forces cracked down on the movement's Mahdi Army militia. But now they are increasingly back, emboldened by the movement's success in March 7 elections.'

24 comments :

Mister Ghost said...

It's not just the Sadrists, Muhannad.

There are many fundamentalists groups in Iraqi Shiastan who have utilized the Constitution and their militias to enforce the wearing of the hijab, the expulsion of Christians, the removal of alcohol, the shutting down of entertainment, the persecution of gays and lesbians, and the restriction of women.

Iraq has become medium-well-done Iran, despite some Iraqi bloggers talking about the goodness of Ayatollah Sistani.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Alcohol is considered ritually pure by Ayatollah al-Sistani, but not permissible to drink in accordance with the Qur'an.[24]

Additionally, Ayatollah al-Sistani does not allow one to engage in the business of selling alcohol or eating/drinking at a place where alcohol consumption is present at your table:

Question: What is your opinion on Muslims eating in non-Muslim or even Muslim owned and operated restaurants which serve halal food however also serve alcoholic drinks? If the alcohol is not being consumed at our table, does this change the ruling?

Answer: If alcohol is not consumed at your table, there would be no objection and you can eat halal food in that restaurant. Yes, if going to such a restaurant is considered bad for the reputation of a Muslim, it is not permissible to eat in there."

Iraqi Mojo said...

He says nothing about shutting it down, like the Sadrists have done, or blowing it up, like Al Qaeda have done.

Sistani's goodness is immense when compared to Sadrists and the "Islamic State of Iraq" and other Sunni fundamentalists. Americans who can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shii, or between Sadrists and Sistani, would not do well in understanding Iraq.

Many Americans (teabaggers, mostly) lump all Muslims together and equate Sunnis with Shiites. Thankfully for America and peace-loving Muslims, teabaggers are a minority in America.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly condemned the hostage-taking incident at a Catholic church in Baghdad.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who is based in Najaf, also advised Iraqi security forces to take more responsibility for the protection of Iraqi citizens, Iraq’s Buratha News Agency reported."

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a statement released Thursday night, said: 'While we denounce the assault on the Holy Koran and stress the importance of not letting this occur, we urge Muslims, whereever they are, to exercise the utmost restraint.'

'Do not do what would hurt the followers of the church,' he said."

Iraqi Mojo said...

'The representative of Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said the aim of Tuesday's attack was to inflict as many casualties as possible and inflame sectarian war.

"It was clear who they were targeting; it was not random," Ahmed al-Safi said in the holy Iraqi city of Karbala.

"In addition to their goal of killing as many as they can they have another aim -- dragging the country into street fighting and sectarian war,"

And Al-Qaeda has promised more violence against Shiites.

Tuesday's attacks were "only one day, but there will be many more like it filled with blood, and the odour of death will not leave" the Shiites, the ISI statement said.

...Al-Qaeda draws its militants from among Sunni Muslims. It was a key player in the 2006-2007 violence, which has tapered off radically in recent years.

Meanwhile, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said fatwas, or religious decrees, by extremist Sunnis were responsible for the car bombings and last Sunday's Al-Qaeda attack on a Baghdad church that killed 46 worshippers.

"Fatwas issued by some takfiris... is the reason for what happened at the church and the other attack," Sadr said in a statement sent by his office.

He also condemned the church attack, echoing remarks by Safi who said Christians must be allowed to live in peace in Iraq.

"We reject and condemn the targeting of churches, and this cannot be accepted.

"Protection must be provided for them (Christians), and they have to be able to live in their country," Safi said.'

Iraqi Mojo said...

'In one of the leaked memos from the US Embassy in Baghdad, diplomats acknowledge that the 80 year-old Grand Ayatollah Sistani is Iran’s “greatest political roadblock” in Iraq. Sistani, who is living in a rented home in a narrow street in Najaf, is more of a bulwark against Iranian interests in Iraq than the military prowess of the Americans. Why? Simply because he does not believe in the system of governance in Iran that is the theological corner stone of both their constitution and zealous expansionist ideology.

Sistani is mentioned in 2 out of 4 leaked memos from the US embassy in Baghdad and his de facto status in Iraq as the most powerful man in the country will likely make him a recurring feature in the 15,000+ memos on Iraq that are to be gradually leaked to the public.

Sistani is by no means the only critic of the Guardianship of the Jurist (Wilayat al-Faqih) – in Najaf. His likely successor, Grand Ayatollah Hakim (a relative of the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) also fundamentally opposes the argument which allowed Khomeini to declare himself the head of state, and whose powers were passed on to Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei.'

Maury said...

"Grand Ayatollah Hakim (a relative of the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) also fundamentally opposes the argument which allowed Khomeini to declare himself the head of state"

That's nice to know.

Dolly said...

Shi'ism is really garbage, I've been trying to watch some of their duroos on UStream, in an effort to understand them.

Two of the better ones ↓
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4712703
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4683701

I'm amazed that the salafee establishment doesn't make takfeer of them. Shaykh Usamah ath-Thahabi says laymen Shia are still muslims. Emoticon banging head against the wall.

Dolly said...

IraqiMojo:
☼ Many Americans (teabaggers, mostly) lump all Muslims together and equate Sunnis with Shiites. ☼

Yea. So, have you thought about why they support you then?


Is it because you are advancing their agenda by volunteering to get killed in the teabaggers' war

Iraqi Mojo said...

What is the teabagger's agenda in Iraq and how am I advancing it?

Mister Ghost said...

Sistani's goodness.

That's rich, Muhannad.

His goodness in his Fatwas that killed the gays and lesbians?
That are still in effect.


His goodness in labeling Christians as Najis?


His goodness in turning Iraq into a fundamentalist state?


His goodness in forcing shariah law onto the Iraqi constitution?


His goodness in saving al-Sadr from the US troops?


His goodness in sending millions of dollars to Iran, including American tax dollars most likely?

Iraqi Mojo said...

"His goodness in sending millions of dollars to Iran, including American tax dollars most likely?"

LOL!

I was thinking of his goodness in urging Iraqi Shia not to retaliate against innocent Sunni Arabs and his calls on the govt to protect Iraqi Christians.

I disagree with his homophobic views and have said so before.

Mister Ghost said...

Hearken to the words of Shia cleric Ayad Jamal Aldin, Muhannad:

The U.S. can help “liberate” Iraq from Iran by admitting that it erred in backing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric in Iraq, after the 2003 invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, Aldin said. In the last parliamentary vote, in 2005, the National Iraqi Alliance, a religious Shiite-led coalition endorsed by al-Sistani that had strong ties with Iran, took the most seats.

“The Americans allowed him to have a role and that was one of their biggest mistakes,” Aldin said. “It was through al- Sistani that Iran was able to invade Iraq.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Did you expect the US to keep Sistani in house arrest like Saddam did? I don't think the Americans fully supported Sistani. The US chose Allawi to become PM. I think the Americans realized how much power Sistani has in Iraq and couldn't call it democracy without respecting the wishes of Iraqis, who emulate Sistani.

According to this interview, Ayad Jamal Aldin believes Sistani is afraid of Iran:

'"The Iraqi people emulate Al-Sistani. Al-Sistani opposes the Rule of the Jurisprudent, he doesn’t believe in it. He does not accept that the jurisprudent has any [political] authority over people. Why doesn't he speak up? Why does he use such specific terminology that only the experts understand? Because he is afraid of Iran. Iran gave all the Shi'ite imams within Iran and abroad the choice..."

Interviewer: "Is Al-Sistani threatened by Iran?"
Ayad Jamal Al-Din: "Iran gave all the Shi'ite imams within Iran and abroad the following choice: Either praise the Rule of the Jurisprudent, or bite your tongue and shut up. If anyone dares to criticize the Rule of the Jurisprudent, they destroy him completely, and make an example of him, so that nobody else will dare to criticize the Rule of the Jurisprudent."

Interviewer: "Do you think that they would be prepared to harm Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Sistani, if he said that he didn't support the Rule of the Jurisprudent?"

Ayad Jamal Al-Din: "They would be prepared to harm the Prophet Muhammad himself." '

Mister Ghost said...

LOL, Muhannad, when Shia clerics are pointing out that allowing Sistani any influence has been a terrible mistake, I don't understand why you and Hayder keep defending him?

So, he isn't a fundamentalist in the Khoemeinesque wilayat al-faqih pathway, his brand of fundamentalism is almost as restrictive, anti-secular, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. etc.

Mister Ghost said...

I think most people within the Bush administration either expected a secular state(unlike the fundamentalist Shia state there is now) or a quick exit from the country - either way, Sistani's influence would have been mitigated, either by the imposition of secularism or a still strong Sunni and Shia secular class exerting influence.

Neither unfortunately occurred.

What happened is the Sunnis and Shia secularists exited as the fundies and Iranians took over.


Sistani is afraid of Iran - well that was a mistake by the Bush administration in not securing the borders and stopping Iranian influence.

The US under both Bush and Obama administrations has been played by the Iranians.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"when Shia clerics are pointing out that allowing Sistani any influence has been a terrible mistake, I don't understand why you and Hayder keep defending him?" --Mister Ghost

Influence in Iraq is not given by America, Mister Ghost. Bush understood this and did not want Iraq to be a colony of the US.

Many articles about Sistani's influence in Iraq can be found online.

Iraqi Mojo said...

How Sistani Helped America

Iraqi Mojo said...

The Americans could have done whatever they wanted in Iraq. They could have made Allawi king. They could have protected every Christian and every Church in Iraq. Why didn't they?

Anonymous said...

"They could have made Allawi king"
...it will happen in the future, just watch and see

Dolly said...

Muhannad inquires:
☼ What is the teabagger's agenda in Iraq and how am I advancing it? ◄

Well, their idea was basically to kill muslims after 9/11. Any muslims, it doesn't matter which. So you provided them with a golden opportunity, by taking your Shia army to kill the poor people of Iraq.

The special bonus for them was that they didn't even have to use American soldiers, because your people were stupid enough to die instead of them.

Iraqi Mojo said...

If their idea was to kill Muslims after 9/11, why didn't they kill Saudis, Yemenis, and other 3arab jarab from the peninsula? Why haven't they dropped bombs on Cairo? It was mostly Saudis led by an Egyptian who did 9/11, after all.

America wanted to go after the people responsible for 9/11, and I don't blame America for doing that. Usama bin Ladin should be killed. But in searching for him and his gang of terrorists, the US should not kill innocent people. The Iraqi govt should protect Sunni Arabs and all its minority peoples.

But Bush and Obama have not blamed Islam.

Bush had been wanting to bring down Saddam for a while. 9/11 gave Bush & Co the opportunity to make a case for overthrowing Saddam. His claims about WMD and links to Al Qaeda turned out to be false. The Iraqi Shia should not be mass murdered because of this.

Saddam the mass murderer of Iraqis was finally overthrown. Most Iraqis were glad to see Iraq liberated from Saddam's tyranny. It should have happened in 1991.

After 9/11 and after Al Qaeda mass murdered Iraqis, the USA and Iraq shared a common enemy. This is a fact of history. For me, an Iraqi American, the death of Al Qaeda would be a wonderful thing to see.

Iraqi Mojo said...

From my post Badr Shakir al Sayyab and surreal Arab fantasies:

'I had nothing to do with the invasion, but I was always in favor of assisting the Iraqi people in overthrowing the tyrant, the mass murderer of Iraqis.

I had nothing to do with the 1991 invasion either, but I remember very well how differently the Arabs reacted to that war, during which the US and its allies bombed Iraq for 40 consecutive days and nights, with smart bombs and conventional bombs and definitely the most bombs dropped on an Arab nation in the history of the world. The Arab "resistance" did not respond by sending hundreds of suicide bombers to fight the American invaders in Iraq in 1991. The Arabs did not care how many bombs were dropped on Iraq, as long as Saddam stayed in charge, and stay in charge he did, mass murdering more Iraqis along the way and building dozens of palaces while ordinary Iraqis struggled to survive.

The Arabs were relatively happy throughout the 90s and many of them moved to America to take advantage of its great freedoms and opportunities. It was only after America toppled the hero of the Arab world, Saddam, and put him on trial for crimes against humanity, that the Arabs and "Ummah" unleashed their arsenal of suicide bombers, many of whom were convinced that killing "apostates" will be rewarded by Allah after the appropriate fatwas were issued. '