Sectarian Wars - Sunnis Vs Shi’ites

Sectarian wars refers to armed conflicts between groups of people of the same religion with some beliefs and practices which separates them. Sectarian wars are quite common on a small scale but one war is taking over the Middle East and poses a danger to American peace and its government-stabilization efforts in Iraq. The sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shi’tes, both Islamic sects, dates back to A.D. 632. It has been continuing on and off till now and is now spreading like a venom throughout the Muslim countries. What cause are these people fighting for?

Lets take a peep look at the insights of this conflict.

Islam’s schism bagan in A.D. 632, immediately after the Prophet Mohammad died without naming a successor as leader of the new Muslim flock. Some of his followers believed the caliph should be passed down Mohammed’s bloodline, starting with his cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. But the majority backed the Prophet’s friend Abu Bakr, who duly became Caliph. When Ali was murdered in A.D 661 and his succession of becoming the fourth Caliph was disrupted, the group formally split. Majority backed the claim of Mu’awiyah, Governor of Syria, and his son and were known as Sunnis. Ali’s supporters were eventually be known as Shi’ites . They agitated for Ali’s Son Hussein to be the caliph and he too was murdered when the two sides met on a battlefield near modern Karbala on Oct.10,680. The death of Hussein led shi’ites into believing that they were oppressed by the Sunnis. Since the Caliph was often the political head of the Islamic empire as well as its religious leader, imperial patronage helped make Sunni Islam the dominant sect. Thus the Shi’ites experienced political, social and economical inequality often reinforced by bloodshed till the fall of Saddam. Iraq’s first post-saddam election in January 2005 led to the Sunnis boycotting the poll and this allowed the Shi’tes to be swept into power. Some shi’ites avenged old grudges against Sunnis and Sunnis in their part hold bombing campaigns confirming their disapproval of their reduced status.

Although the concurrent battles between them seems nothing to the people there, the world tends to focus on the bigger picture. Shi’ites are now politically dominant in Iraq and Iran is the leading Shi’ite power. So most of the Arab countries blame Iran for the Sectarian war and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of shi’ite hizballah militia in Lebonon and its meddling with Iraq proves to the Arab nations that their old Persian (Shi’ites) rivals are determined to reshape the Middle East to suit their interest.

While Iraqis are caught up in their own battles, their children are carrying the hatred forward to the next generation. More and more differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites is poisoning the minds of the young. This is frightening and might be a possible cause for upcoming civil wars between Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq where almost every household has a AK-47.

The Sunnis and Shi’ites must reconcile before things really get out of hand. Any kind of peace programmes by the US will be unsuccessful in the long run as the minds of the people in Iraq is poisoned for seeking revenge. The interference of US militants has currently stopped the fights as the Shi’its know their troops are not prepared to handle American troops. But how long will this ‘peace’ last? Afterall, American troops will have to leave one day and that day will mark the start of another Civil war. Tensions and conflicts will continue to batter Iraq up if these people do not foresee the future.

Reference: TIME, March 12 2007 article on the Sunnis and Shi’ites.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Criminals and terrorists are punished in various forms under the court of Law. They could be given death penalty, put in rehabilitation centres, or asked to do corrective work orders depending on the extent of their crimes and charges. Why would they be punished likewise? Other than the death penalty, the other kinds of punishments are deterrent techniques to stop crimes. All these are legal but something - torture- which acts as the fundamental key in proving it successful is being debated over today. Whatever the kind of punishment it is, it certainly involves torture to a certain extent. How can it be called a punishment when it is being enjoyed by the accused? Torture could be in forms like emotional torture, physical torture and mental torture. Usually when the accused are jailed up, they start to undergo emotional and mental torture which is imposed on them by the new adverse conditions they are open to in the prisons. Example would be in Singapore prisons where the accused undergoes strict disciplinary trainings which requires great deal of mental strength. Eg . marching under the hot sun. Furthermore, the prisons are not luxurious places. The prisoners usually have to adjust drastically to suit themselves in there. However this is only applicable to people who have been convicted by the court. In this case, it is not justified to torment more as they have been given a fixed period of jail term which itself is punitive.

However when we consider criminals and terrorists held captive for interrogative purposes it is justified to use torture on them to a certain extent. If the captive is suspected with evidence to be a national threat, then torture can be employed because there is proof that a great deal of pain is going to be imposed on the public by the criminal and the only way of preventing the death of hundred others is to make him confess. Although torture cannot be gaurenteed to make a criminal talk, it’s a fair try to use it on them in order to achieve a benefiting result. Example is when Zubaydah gave interrogators information that identified Binalshibh and "helped lead" to the capture of both Binalshibh and the prized K.S.M. Especially torture is justified for hardened criminals because they repeat their crimes often without caring for others.

Just a bomb blast somewhere in the world stirs emotions of fury and sadness in people all over the world. It is possible that a death of a single person affects a whole community.
Example is the deaths of political leaders.

Imagine the effect of killing thousands with a single plan employed by the criminals and terrorists. It would be devastating! People, especially the Human Rights would debate that it is outrageous to torment the criminals as they are human too. Aren’t Humans supposed to be rational, sensitive and sensible people who do not dig their own graves by their actions? How can criminals who kill so many people can ever be considered as human in the first place for the Human Rights to fight for them? Does having the same organs and features qualify a living thing as a human instead of a mammal?

Thus I argue that torture is justified to be used on criminals and terrorists during interrogations with evidence that they are of great threat to world peace. Torture is also justified to be used on hardened criminals. However, it should not be employed for every single interrogation as torture is not successful all the time. Moreover, the interrogators should use other more successful ways such talking to the criminals or trying to brainwash them into confessing rather then torturing.

References :

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533436,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Torture-acceptable-says-former-NCA-chief/2005/05/22/1116700585264.html#

New Media – Power to the people or threat to stability?

The world is beginning to be dominated by New Media - Blogging. The press of old times do not attract people as much Blogging does these days. Given the opportunity and freedom to say anything one wants, ultimately a human’s instinct will tell him to fully express himself without considering the consequences of doing so. Blogging which started off small and unpopular now is done everyday and a blog is created every second, adding to the 37 million that already exist. This shows exactly how blogging has reached the mass of people and how much it is demanded by the people. While blogging is definitely relaxing and confidence boosting when one gets to meet thousands of other people facing the same kind of situations as him or herself, It can be of great threat to the stability of a nation if blogging gets out of hand. If blogging gets into the hands of the wrong groups of people , terrorists for example, they could use this as a medium to spread terrorist believes and manipulate the minds of people especially the minds of the Muslims. This is exactly what is happening in the world now.

Terrorists spread their extremist ideas through blogs to gain support from people who get indoctrinated by their claims easily. They also use it to communicate between various terrorist groups in order to carry out their deadly missions successfully. The most amazing part of this is that they can carry out plans easily with what little technology they have and countries with high- tech gadgets cannot even locate them. However, be mindful that it’s the normal and sane people who are capable of being terrorists. Even the public could be considered as terrorists if they bring about disagreements and hostility in people which would threaten world peace. Its usually the controversial incidents that happen in the world that causes people to create more and more blogs in order to express themselves. Examples of events which stirred the feelings of the people are the September 11 attack at the World Trade Centre and the release of blasphemous cartoon caricatures of Prophet Mohamed . This let to the increase in the number blogs world wide. Since people do comment harshly and bad mouth even the government in their blogs, its crucial their blogs are censored in order to prevent anti- government feelings in the people. This would prevent demonstrations and riots from happening in the world.

For example, Singapore government has allowed freedom of speech to be established in its citizens’ blogs, however it arrested two citizens recently for uploading comments which were capable of creating anti-multiracial feelings in the people. In Iran, locking up bloggers remains a favorite practice. In January, Arash Sigarchi received a three-year prison sentence for 'insulting the Supreme Guide' and for 'propaganda against the regime.

Blogging is just a medium for individuals to express their feelings. When a government of a country prohibits public rallying against the government, shouldn’t it not allow blogging since it is now being used to communicate ill ideas which are sometimes detrimental to a country’s stability? Blogging is definitely a power to people which can be misused by them too. On the positive side,blogging grows critical thinking and analyzing skills in people and informs the government of the opinions of its people and what they think thus allowing more interactions between them. However, if the same blog brings about differences and enmity among people, it should be censored. Thus I would say that blogging is a power to the people that could be misused by them to cause instability in a region.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

The media can certainly be relied upon to convey a truth. Truth as in not a genuine truth but a fabricated truth. Why do I say so? Media is a transporter of news and events to the masses so that the people know what is happening around them. It is just like any other professions but should be a more truthful one as it has to report what it sees. However things are not like what it should be because to a certain extent media is controlled by external forces and internal greeds as explicitly shown in the article. Sometimes media has to cover up the seriousness of the truth, as in the event of the Iraqi war being an unnecessary invasion fueled by corporate-controlled news media’s lust to boost profits, and present things in a nonchalant manner. This is to avoid criticism of the media so that it does not loose its viewers and remains popular. Its more safer for the media to go with government than to go against it as in the case of McCarthy’s “Great Lie Theory” which was disemminated to the public by the media too.

Sometimes there maybe “deals” between the media and some powerful forces so that the media gains a profit .An example would be when Powell’s son Michael changed F.C.C rules so that the media empires could acquire even a greater share of the marketplace. In return all these empires had to do was endorse, the warmongering lies of the Bush dictatorship, and accept, or at least not question, the fraudulent results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential “elections.” This illustrates that the media can be bribed!

Sometimes media is prejudice against some people. After all, it’s the ordinary people who control news publications and they do edit news to their own gain so much that in the end the news becomes a tripe of dishonesty and fabrications, with a few seconds of condensed truth. The author’s experience ,as stated in the article when he was asked to contact the proper investigative agency regarding the issue that local community people were being unjustly purged from voter registration rolls, confirms that the media gives a overall false and dishonest product for the sake of earning profits. Moreover at times, media is influenced by relations as in the case when the author’s article was rejected because it could be construed as an attack on the professionalism of the local police department. Later the author found out that the editor who had reviewed his article and the police officer who had belatedly espoused her “doubts” were friends, and this was the real motive behind the censorship.

As such when media is being influenced by many factors like Prejudice, Profits and Popularity, how can it be relied upon to convey the truth? Of course people can argue that there are television programmes like Comedy Central’s satirical program “The Daily Show,” for example, often covers current events with more insight than the so-called cable “news” networks, where “discussion” routinely consists of “experts” of dubious qualifications shouting and interrupting each other.

However, just because there is one or two reliable and truthful programmes, we cannot conclude that the media is reliable because media is a huge banyan tree with so many branches. Even if television programmes “show” the “truth”, how about “split-screen” interviews cases where the respondent has no visual contact with the questioner, relying instead on an earpiece that simply transmits sound. As a result, the questioner can smirk, frown, scowl, or employ numerous other forms of non-verbal communication to indicate approval or derision, all without the respondent’s knowledge. There you can see from here this is a way employed by media to convey their biases.

Media adapts to different situations. For example, during the controversy between Italian football player and Zidane at the world cup, the media never failed to report it all clear and transparent because the event was witnessed by thousands of people. Moreover by reporting such a “hot” news as it was, it was able to increase its popularity!

Media can be trusted to report the happenings around the world but if one were to analyze the truth in it, it might be discovered that there are some fabrications. Thus if one wants the truth, one should search for it alone.

Reference:

Great Lies of the American Free Press

David R. Hoffman, Pravda (leftist, online), Moscow, Russia, May 23, 2005