Littlejohn talks sunnis and shias

This is just hilarious.

Off the back of the new US House Intelligence Committe chair Silvestre Reyes thinking that Al-Qaeda was a shia organisation, the Sunday Times showed up a load of British MPs who have an interest in the Muslim world by finding they didn't fair much better in knowing the difference between sunnis and shias either.

Helpfully, right-wing Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn who has not been shy to engage in rants against Muslims in the past to say the least, waded in [fourth entry down] to assist his readers:

... here is a simple cut-out-and-keep guide to the two dominant branches of Islam: Sunnis are the peace-loving, Saudi-backed wing who brought you Al Qaeda.

Shias are the peace-loving, Iranian-backed strain behind Hamas and Hezbollah. I hope that helps.

Never mind the branding of all Muslims into either being Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hizbullah which Arab Media Watch rightly complain about. The astonishing point here is that anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows Hamas is not shia.

And this is the problem. Self-proclaimed experts, spouting off like nobody's business - making life and death decisions in the case of MPs - who in actual fact know absolutely nothing. Littlejohn meanwhile was not even put on the spot - he voluntarily took the time to compose this article and still got it wrong.

Comments

[joe90]

No I've got your point,
it's our victims who are to blame, not us.

People who manage to defend themselves, somehow, are a big problem. After all we're the good guys!

Except our government go around committing the worst crimes its possible to commit and still we look to our victims to not resist us while we butcehr and bomb them by the 1,000s.

So how about a peaceful non-violent Tony Ghandi or a Matrin Luther Bush - who will use every means other than resorting to lies and violence and war crimes Hitler is guilty of, in order to travel half-way round the globe to butcher 10s of 1000s og Iraqis?

If peaceful non-violent dis-obedience, and all that, is good enough for Mohammed - then why isn't it good enough for those who are the source of all the violence in the world, the Tonys and the Georges and the Olmerts?

All Bush and Blair and Olmert are saying, is give war a chance!

[Osama]

Gandhi was big because he got media coverage. There's plenty of opportunities to promote Muslim Gandhis, but if no one's looking, it doesn't work. All the media want to cover is those frothing at the mouth.

Aineliva, further to the Dispatches debate, you can read more from Thabet and also listen to the latest iWitness podcast.

[aineliva]

Osama thanks for links.

Yes a lot of mouth frothing goes on here. ;-)

[aineliva]

DrM, Again I will be blunt. Perhaps you could occupy your time by doing something involving sex and travel???????

[joe90]

for someone whose has made about 10 comments to date,
out of a possible of about 30 comments,
from about 10 individuals,

- you would know all about frothing and needing to go and do something, whatever -

- maybe you could go and write out postcards to the victims whose lives were blown to pieces by the men of honour whose violence you appreciate so much - explain to them how noble and honourable you are perhaps

[kris]

MLK said: "But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence".

Well, come on Joe. Go on. Criticise it.

[kris]

Joe does present a compelling yet temperate argument. Yep, I'm convinced. You've won me over with your brilliance and message.

[joe90]

criticise what?

I heartily endorse MLK sentimentsm, always have, always will.

I heartily endorse the resistence of nazi-occupied europe, or any people under illegal military occupation and their right to defend themselves - self defence is no crime.
The illegal occupation is.

Did non-violent civil protests around the world stop blair and bush illegally attacking and occupying iraq and butchering nearly a million of them to date?

what's your point about civil resistence and resistence to illegal military attacks and occupations?

[John Palubiski]

There's plenty of opportunities to promote Muslim Gandhis, but if no one's looking, it doesn't work.

Would it not be the purvey of Muslim news outlets such as islamonline and Al Jazeera to rpomote the emergence of a "Muslim Ghandi"?

I've no responsability whatsoever in this enterprise.

Did the Islamic world mid-wife Martin Luther, or indeed any other Christian-based reformer?

Besides, it's most doubtful a Muslim Ghandi even be welcome

Pacifism and non-violence would necessarily involve a complete revision and revamping of the islam's core texts in an effort to expunge the numerous exhortations to violence; something any islamist would consider haram.

Next time I'm in Dublin I'm going to look this guy up, and get the honest lowdown, after all he is partly Irish, he isn't afraid to say it like it is, it's in his blood

Bring the fellow some literature on Christian theology. He's so marginalised, threatened and ostracised by those he once called his co-religionists, that he may be interested in getting the straight dope on Christ.

He's certainly gotten the straight dope on Islam.

[aineliva]

Sorry John, I have no time for evangelism of any faith type. And I would never insult any human being by assuming that I know better than they do what God or religion they should espouse, and I include atheistism in that.

Those who seek to "save souls" and bring them to God are, in my view the most arrogant of humans. In denial about their own needs, how can they delude themselves that they can "help" others. And of course there are the idealogues who have "political Gods" and beliefs, that type don't impress me either.

Let them share their beliefs, I'll listen, then I'll share mine. if it is not two way, it's no way.

[joe90]

How would an Islamic verion of MLK or Gandhi have prevented the attack on Iraq, if Saddam's WMD couldn't even do it?

How do you prevent unprovoked aggression such as Bush-Blairs or Hitlers?

By the way,
whatever happened to the peace-loving Martin Luther King?

[kris]

what happened to MLK- He was murdered. But look beyond that and you will see much has moved on since Rosa Parks. There is an entrenched back middle class. Racism is not a thing of the past but at the same time, black men and women run companies, run the military and one, Barak Obama is running for President.

And if Blacks in American adopted Joe's model? Neither black nor white people would have moved on. Don't you think it's time to move on?

[joe90]

what happened to MLK- He was murdered. But look beyond that..
- yes, why not - a peaceful G-d fearing pacifist was brutality murdered for his peaceful non racist views.

Let's move on to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Venezuala - always onwards.

What's my model again
apart from people having a right to self-defence against being attacked (I presume that's your model too, when you are out and about)?

Of course,
Hitler, Blair, Bush and Olmert have a perfect right to carry out unprovoked aggression and undertake illegal military occupations.

Would an Jewish-Slavic Gandhi or MLK have saved Himmler's victims for Auschwitz or Bush's victims from Abu Ghraib?

The threat of Saddam's (non-existent) WMD didn't stop Bush and Blair carrying out the same crime as Hitler - so how was a pacisfist Islamic Gandhi or MLK going to do it - please could have details rather than empty slogans from you this time?

Apart from the fact Bush, Blair, and Olmert have already heard about MLK and Gandhi -
so why then don't any of these leaders practice these values, why is it left to their victims who have to practice non-violence when under attack and under illegal military occupation?

Bush and Blair claim to be christian, so why dodn't they turn the other cheek, like good christians are supposed to?

Who would Jesus bomb?

What is it that Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians and Lebanese do to merit unprovoked aggressions and occupation (although Olmert failed miserably in Lebanon due to the unbelievable performace of The Party of G-d's defensive strategy)?

[DrM]

Sex and tourism, aineliva? No thanks mate, I leave such outings to people of your stripe. You and palpablinski(keyboard crusader wannabe that he is) can be in denial all you want, but the fact remains that christofascist nutters are the ones truly preaching hatred on a mass scale, both with words and bombs.

[Abu Sinan]

As if all Shi'a, like all Sunni, are the same? A Zaydi is the same as a Twelver? A Salafi the same as a Sufi?

These guys are idiots. Now you know why are policies are as messed up as they are!

[John Palubiski]

Are the two gals in the background your sisters, DrM?

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August/Dress/8.html

[DrM]

Out of material so soon, palpablinski? You remind me of opium, a slow working dope.
Which one of these fine gentleman do you share the same family stump with?
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j120/jhemp41/redneck.jpg

[aineliva]

DrM wrote "Sex and tourism, aineliva? No thanks mate, I leave such outings to people of your stripe. You and palpablinski(keyboard crusader wannabe that he is) can be in denial all you want, but the fact remains that christofascist nutters are the ones truly preaching hatred on a mass scale, both with words and bombs."

Firstly when you respond it would be nice to be responded to as an individual. I am not John. Much as you might like to think so.

As to your comment, and it seems to be directed to both of us, though I am not sure, and really don't care; "People of my stripe", and what might that be?

Are you being racist DrM? I feel you are, being a racist, so according to your own analysis of my character, you are not in any position to call anyone names.

[Abdur Rahman]

Peace, one and all...

I, for one, wouldn't expect Littlejohn to show much interest in the diversity within the Islamic tradition. I suspect that his agenda is, in any case, quite different.

My own interests lie in Islamic history (amongst other things) and to this end, I've started a blog dedicated to its study. It's still new, but it aims to offer free study materials and so on, so that (at the very least) we can have somewhat more informed discussions. It's here: http//www.islamichistory.wordpress.com

One of my main interests is the emergence of the various movements within Islam, i.e. Sunni, Shia, etc.

As for a Muslim Martin Luther King, there are many enlightened individuals walking this earth in Muslim garb. The thing is, such people do not court celebrity (unlike big brother). Moreover, the media is perhaps uninterested in such things.

As for the Despatches programme, I've not watched it. Though I'll reserve detailed judgement till I have, I can say without reservation that all talk of kuffar-slaying, etc, etc, etc is wrong and stands condemned by the Islamic tradition itself and the vast majority of Muslims. I certainly condemn it.

Peace...

Abdur Rahman

[DrM]

Racist? Hows that ainelivia? Got a persecution complex there, bud? Since you're recommending "sex and tourism" I'm assuming you have first hand experience. Have you ever spoken to a woman without giving out your credit card number?