Iraqi clerics call for French boycott

Isn't it great to see the resurgence of Islamic clerics in Iraq? Thank you Mister Bush!

BTW, I think the French decision on headscarves is an appalling one!

Muqtada al-Sadr has been a strong critic of US occupation. His father was a beloved cleric assassinated by Saddam.

Iraqi clerics call for French boycott
Saturday 27 December 2003, 4:02 Makka Time, 1:02 GMT


Al-Sadr wants Sunnis and Shias
to unite against France's decision

Iraqi Shia clerics have called for a boycott of French products in protest at France's move to ban Islamic headscarves from schools.

Influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the boycot during his Friday sermon in Kufa near Najaf.

"I suggest that a fatwa (religious edict) be issued by (Shia religious scholars in the Iraqi holy city of) Najaf, (the Iranian Shia religious centre of) Qom and al-Azhar (the Sunni Muslims' highest religious authority) ordering a boycott of French products," he said.

"If we cannot reach such a decision, we should at least threaten to do it."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/308D41B4-D976-4A5F-9A28-42FB9F5FF9D8.htm

so told us Bush and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld... didn't they also
promise us candy and flowers?

A-Holes we all predicted this, and so did the experts

though, myself being secular, prefer such in gov policiy, but irrespective of my own personal bias, I do not think it is wrong, nor extreme to let a people decide forthemselves. the act of banning headgear out right seems more extreme to me than speaking out and taking a stand against such extreme actions before we start making them wear some other form of 'safety' id, plainly visible... for their own protection of course.

these actions make me very nervous about where this will all finally end and as we all know we must question the beginings if we even hope to avoide any perilous course we may be on as a nation.

then theres the extreme dificulty of trying to impose our 'ideals' on them at the point of a bayonet... we see what happened on our own nations birth and, thankfully, many more since.

though i agree that this crusade has the potential to be even more devestating then our preveious failed attempts as many folks warned in advance.

with the RADICAL neoCONs at the helm all of us must remain vigilant.

:hi:

peace

not in the same sense that you or I usually protest

We (as in the West since this time it is France) have managed to
radicalize them even further.

I know hard to understand since I can understand the French Decision

There are days I wish something similar was done here

Don't ask...

But there is more to this than meets the eye. Reminds of Khomeini in his early years, I know hard to explain

ANY GUESSES ?

Also:

* Similar restrictions are placed on everyone in France. The Mullahs' concern with only headscarves (and only Muslims) is therefore illiberal and anti-social.

* The Mullahs are afraid of an Islam emerging bearing female faces. A liberal Islam would eventually push their way of life to the margins. I can't say I'd mourn that.

* Europe is the seat of liberal Christianity, and it could acquire that status for Islam as well.

* No one will fight over headscarves, especially after what France did to try and stop the invasion.

iraq will not be a secular democracy.
it may be moderate -- but it will be islamist.
and that means there will always be tension with the west -- from frances decision to ban head scarves to hollywood and the messages islamists sees there.
iraqis are going to want a country that is for iraq -- and islamists are not going to like all the money going to american corporations. none of this is going to work out the way bush wants it.

The French, among others, lead a world-wide effort not to kill their Muslim children with bombs and then they turn around and get all 'hot' over French internal policy...

Leads me to think
1) 'friendlies' in Iraq have cooked this one up with the CPA/USA agit-prop machine to make average Iraqis believe the French is their real enemy and not the 20 year old American feeling up their daughter at checkpoints

or

2) maybe the it's true about Islam? A desert religion that has run it's historical course and should be discarded...

Prior to the Iranian revolution that toppled the Shah, and before Saddam and his Baathists came to power (thanks to CIA), Iraq was the spiritual center of Shiite Islam. The tomb of Ali, the founder of Shiite Islam is in Najaf, Iraq.

Here is an article from the Salt Lake Tribune that explains the shift of power back to Iraq. I will point out that this article is from April 2003, and that relations between Iraqi Shiites and the US have soured since then.

Shiite Shift in Iran Probable

By Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson
Knight Ridder News Service

QOM, Iran -- The fall of Saddam Hussein could trigger a religious upheaval as well as a political one.

For 25 years, Iran and its top religious leader, the late Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, have defined Shiite Islam for its 120 million followers and for the world. But the liberation of Najaf -- Shiite Islam's holiest city -- by U.S. forces now threatens to weaken Iran's influence.

Theologians and analysts say a new, Arab Shiite face could emerge, one with spiritual leaders prepared to be friendly to the United States so long as it leaves Iraq to the Iraqi people.

Since Iran's Islamic revolution brought Khomeini to power in 1979, this minority Muslim sect has been harsh and anti-Western, advocating the destruction of Israel, seeking to export the revolution to Lebanon and elsewhere, sponsoring terrorism and assassinations and pledging allegiance to a single, supreme leader.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04132003/iraq/47643.asp

I can't remmeber. It turned on the fact that like his Soviet patrons, Saddam had castrated the ayatollahs of the shia by making sure their leaders were harmless. The US can't do that, probably doesn't understand how things can change fairly quickly, despite the rigorous standards for "creating" an ayatollah. The Shah's repression created Khomeini. The Soviet brutality was more practical and effective in dealing with religious institutions. We are in the Sha's mode and doing it faster and better than ever with our real committment(or facade) of ideals hamstringing realpolitik.

"If we cannot reach such a decision, we should at least threaten to do it."

I'm gonna steal that for something, that's hilarious.

Maybe something good will come out of the power shift that Bushco has created, but it is extremely doubtful. At least Saddam was attempting against all odds to subdue religious radicalism and it appears that he was attempting to bring Iraq into the world community. He just didn't know how to accomplish that without resorting to extreme cruelty. If Saddam couldn't create secularism and modernization then the chances of Bushco succeeding are remote. The conditions are so similar to the situation in Iran after the disposition of the Shah although made easier without the interference of the US.
When religion is used by governments as a tool for control and subjugation there will never be peace.
Invading Iraq was the most foolish act ever commited by the US government. I'm thinking that we must be very watchfull that religious radicalism doesn't overtake our freedom to believe and act according to our spiritual beliefs. I fear that the people in control of our government have that very idea in mind. Quite sickening that some Congressional members openly declare this no less than a Christian nation.

Sometimes I feel I see the handwriting on the wall.