Sunni-Shia conference in Mecca: Iraq clerics urge end to violence

[EOY]

Religious leaders from across Iraq's sectarian divide have called for a halt to violence in the country.

During a gathering in the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, they signed a document drawing on Islamic texts which say shedding Muslim blood is forbidden.

It urges the preservation of Iraq's unity, the protection of holy sites and the release of "innocent detainees".

Scores of Iraqis are killed on a daily basis in tit-for-tat violence between the Shia and Sunni Muslim communities.

The meeting was held by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The 10-point text forbids kidnappings, incitement of hatred, attacks on religious sites and the forcing of members of the other sect from their homes.

It also called for the release from detention of Iraqis not charged with specific crimes.

The conference organisers hope that once the document is adopted, it will be put on display in mosques throughout Iraq and published in the Iraqi media.

Representatives of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and Iraq's largest Shia party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, backed the document, as did the former leader of Iraq's largest Sunni party, the Associated Press reported.

A spokesman told the news agency the text had also been approved by the country's top Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the radical Shia leader Moqtada Sadr, whose Mehdi army militia has been widely blamed for involvement in sectarian attacks.

Sheikh Ahmad Abd al-Ghafour al-Samerrai, the head of the Sunni Waqf Department in Iraq, told the BBC Arabic service that the Mecca conference was a culmination of previous meetings.

"The most important point in it is that the shedding of Sunni and Shia blood is forbidden, forbidden, forbidden," he said.

BBC Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi says the plan would be a good one if it worked, but similar appeals by Sunni and Shia clerics have fallen on deaf ears in the past.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6066578.stm

[SYRIANKID]

Excellent.

[Laws]

yeh but hows that going to work when the sentence in bold is part of the Shia thought, to embarass and ridicule a Sunni where ever he is?

EDIT: correct me if im wrong.

[SYRIANKID]

The Prophet (pbuh) said:

Take heed not to go astray after me and strike one another's necks.

[EOY]

Originally Posted by Laws

yeh but hows that going to work when the sentence in bold is part of the Shia thought, to embarass and ridicule a Sunni where ever he is?

EDIT: correct me if im wrong.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question..

[Laws]

Im saying, part of being a Shia is to hate Sunni muslims. So what is this confernece trying to do?

In turn, a Sunni must dislike a Shia because of their thoughts and ideas on islamic history.

[Laws]

I am a Muslim.

[SYRIANKID]

Originally Posted by Laws

I am a Muslim.

Sunnis and Shia have differences, but these differences pale in comparison to what they share.

Plus, it's totally illegal to kill people based on belonging to a different religion, let alone a difference of opinion within one.

If people simply had proper etiquette, of knowing how to discuss things properly and not to insult, debate, or fight on closed points, none of these things would happen.

[EOY]

Originally Posted by Laws

Im saying, part of being a Shia is to hate Sunni muslims. So what is this confernece trying to do?

Not true.

Originally Posted by Laws

In turn, a Sunni must dislike a Shia because of their thoughts and ideas on islamic history.

Not true either. I dislike what Sunnis consider to be their deviation from the prophetic example, but I don't hate them as people, and that's a given. Every Sunni probably feels the same way.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Laws

Im saying, part of being a Shia is to hate Sunni muslims. So what is this confernece trying to do?

Not true

[Laws]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Not true

well okay, ill find some evidence for that, but heres for the flip side:

“It is not permissible to pray behind any of the mushrikeen, including those who seek the help of anyone other than Allaah and seek support from him, because seeking help through anyone other then Allaah, such as the dead, idols, the jinn, etc. is shirk, the association of others with Allaah, glorified be He.”

Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (vol. 2, p. 396)

And he said: one should not pray behind any imaam who is known to exaggerate concerning the Ahl al-Bayt (members of the Prophet’s household). If no such thing is known about him or any other Muslim, then it is OK to pray behind them.

Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, vol. 12, p. 107

so agian, whats this conference really trying to do?

[EOY]

Originally Posted by Laws

well okay, ill find some evidence for that, but heres for the flip side:

That's true, but it's completely irrelevant to the purpose of the conference.

Originally Posted by Laws

so agian, whats this conference really trying to do?

To put an end to all bloodshed and senseless killing, because Muslims shouldn't be killing each other in the first place.

[SYRIANKID]

Originally Posted by Laws

so agian, whats this conference really trying to do?

Trying to get people to stop killing each other and to stop dwelling on points of difference.

You don't have to pray behind a Shia, but that doesn't have to be a big deal.

[Laws]

okay, in hope for this thread not to turn personal, lets look at relgions in general.

these actions and political movements, only results in one thing, the weakening of the religion. the loss of key fundemental teachings in that core religion that can be seen in todays Western Christian countries stems from actions such as this, to the point, where any man, who some how has found himself to be in a positon of power, can abuse it over his people to distort their religion futher for other aims/goals which they may intenional or unintenionally be trying to reach.

take the recent case of the Pope considering (or allowing in the end?) the use of contreception. now clearly this is wrong, the altering of key beliefs just for a change in socitey that shouldnt have occured, he is falling victim the desires of man rather than the desires of God.

and seing as theres a thread on this already, the goverment in Egypt is another perfect example of how "good political" movements arent neccesoraly correct, espeically when we understand there is no Islamic form of goverment or wider jurisdiction availble.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Laws

okay, in hope for this thread not to turn personal, lets look at relgions in general.

these actions and political movements, only results in one thing, the weakening of the religion. the loss of key fundemental teachings in that core religion that can be seen in todays Western Christian countries stems from actions such as this, to the point, where any man, who some how has found himself to be in a positon of power, can abuse it over his people to distort their religion futher for other aims/goals which they may intenional or unintenionally be trying to reach.

take the recent case of the Pope considering (or allowing in the end?) the use of contreception. now clearly this is wrong, the altering of key beliefs just for a change in socitey that shouldnt have occured, he is falling victim the desires of man rather than the desires of God.

and seing as theres a thread of this already, the goverment in Egypt is another perfect example of how good Political movements arent neccesoraly correct, espeically when we understand there is no Islamic form of goverment or wider jurisdiction availble.

Your post implicitely states that the sectarian conflict must continue in order to not sway from the core beliefs. Am I correct?

[Laws]

whats right is right. And i woudlnt want anyone to compramise on their beliefs.

[SYRIANKID]

Originally Posted by Laws

whats right is right. And i woudlnt want anyone to compramise on their beliefs.

You don't have to compromise anything. Just use the etiquettes of discussion, not market bombs.

[Laws]

I mean, in terms of the original article, i agree, what is being presented seems like only a good thing. But the question lies what does this really achieve? the same tensions will exsist, except now the occupying force will have an easier time...

[SYRIANKID]

Originally Posted by Laws

I mean, in terms of the original article, i agree, what is being presented seems like only a good thing. But the question lies what does this really achieve? the same tensions will exsist, except now the occupying force will have an easier time...

Explain

[EOY]

Originally Posted by Laws

okay, in hope for this thread not to turn personal, lets look at relgions in general.

these actions and political movements, only results in one thing, the weakening of the religion. the loss of key fundemental teachings in that core religion that can be seen in todays Western Christian countries stems from actions such as this, to the point, where any man, who some how has found himself to be in a positon of power, can abuse it over his people to distort their religion futher for other aims/goals which they may intenional or unintenionally be trying to reach.

take the recent case of the Pope considering (or allowing in the end?) the use of contreception. now clearly this is wrong, the altering of key beliefs just for a change in socitey that shouldnt have occured, he is falling victim the desires of man rather than the desires of God.

Bro, with regards to the preservation of the religion in its full authenticity, you're preaching to the choir.

But this isn't about that. The message of the conference is not "Sunnis and Shias are both right, there's no difference between us." No, this is about putting an end to the killing. This is where the emphasis of the conference is on, and rightly so.

"A believer should never kill another believer unless it is by mistake. Anyone who kills a believer by mistake should free a believing slave and pay blood-money to his family unless they forgo it as a charity. If he is from a people who are your enemies and is a believer, you should free a believing slave. If he is from a people you have a treaty with, blood money should be paid to his family and you should free a believing slave. Anyone who cannot find the means should fast two consecutive months. This is a concession from Allah. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." (Qur'an 4:92)

Even the destruction of the Ka'aba is easier on Allah than the killing of a believing soul.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Laws

But the question lies what does this really achieve? the same tensions will exsist, except now the occupying force will have an easier time...

Actually foreign forces love to see muslims in conflict with one another, for many reasons.
1) They can use that as an excuse to occupy Iraq longer in order to fortify their position and to secure the oil revenues.
2) They can use that to preach their own beliefs
3) They can use that to as a "problem with Islam".

[EOY]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Actually foreign forces love to see muslims in conflict with one another, for many reasons.
1) They can use that as an excuse to occupy Iraq longer in order to fortify their position and to secure the oil revenues.
2) They can use that to preach their own beliefs
3) They can use that to as a "problem with Islam".

Exactly.

[Laws]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Actually foreign forces love to see muslims in conflict with one another, for many reasons.
1) They can use that as an excuse to occupy Iraq longer in order to fortify their position and to secure the oil revenues.
2) They can use that to preach their own beliefs
3) They can use that to as a "problem with Islam".

yeh, this where i think our discussion should be heading, the implications it has on Iraq.

unfortunally its now time for me to leave for the office, but i will be back to post once i get there (lucky im the 'owners son' )

EDIT: whoa, my 1000th post. haha, most of them have been in the last year, which have manily consisted of 'lol' 'nice one dude' and also 'PIITB' >_>

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Laws

yeh, this where i think our discussion should be heading, the implications it has on Iraq.

unfortunally its now time for me to leave for the office, but i will be back to post once i get there (lucky im the 'owners son' )

EDIT: whoa, my 1000th post. haha, most of them have been in the last year, which have manily consisted of 'lol' 'nice one dude' and also 'PIITB' >_>

we'll talk to you soon.

Take care for now

[out of shape]

I see shia and sunni marrying each other. I do not see the newly weds killing each other over differences in beliefs.

[IceDragon]

I have to say...it's about bloody time. Let's just hope this one sticks.

[jmonty]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Actually foreign forces love to see muslims in conflict with one another, for many reasons.
1) They can use that as an excuse to occupy Iraq longer in order to fortify their position and to secure the oil revenues.
2) They can use that to preach their own beliefs
3) They can use that to as a "problem with Islam".

1)you think the US is taking the revenue from iraqi oil? maybe we are securing it, but only for the Iraqi government.

2) we (US military) are not allowed to preach here to the locals at all. we are not even allowed to hang up flags of our states, let alone crosses or other religious symbols.

3) america doesn't have a problem with islam, (radical) islam has a problem with us.

[jmonty]

Originally Posted by IceDragon

I have to say...it's about bloody time. Let's just hope this one sticks.

it is in everyones interest for the violence to end.

[LeilaM]

Originally Posted by Laws

Im saying, part of being a Shia is to hate Sunni muslims. So what is this confernece trying to do?

ummm. not. Shi'i law is very specific in stating that Sunnis are Muslim (ie they don't takfir them), and ergo marriage with them is legit. If we're supposed to hate Sunnis so much, then why would we be able to marry one. Enough said.

As for what is going on in Iraq, what we are seeing is not solely based upon sect. In fact, I'd say that the sectarian arguments used by both sides (yes both) are more excuses than anything else. Example, if it were a sect issue, then the Arab Sunnis would be sided with the Kurds (who are mostly, but not all, Sunni) and they'd both be fighting the Arab (and Kurdish) Shi'is. Obviously, this isn't what is happening right now, and so there's other factors involved- loss of power from a group of the population who formerly held a substantial amount of it, infighting between various groups themselves (ie infighting amongst actual sects themselves- Sunni and Shia populations), political opportunists, foreign (aside from the occupation itself, mind you) influences and pressures and even fighters, etc.

I could go on, but it's just too damn depressing ;(

[nail3r]

Islam peace talks = winning ever more of my respect.