The Infidel's Guide to the Middle EastSection III: The Sunny and Shitty Sides of Islam

Or, WHY ARABS HATE EACH OTHER

Islam is unique from all other religions in that it is based on the teachings of one charismatic figure who proclaimed himself divine and whose teachings are documented in a “holy” book. Modern Islamic practice is divided between two opposing groups, not unlike the Protestant and Lutheran factions within Christianity, or the Buddhist and Confucist factions within Judaism. Of the Muslims, 83% are Sunni (“Soo(1)-nee”) and 15% are Shi’ite (“Shee-ight”). The other 2% are… well, who cares?

The fundamental difference between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites is the way in which they believe their leaders should be chosen. Sunnis believe that the their leader should be elected by a council—as did the first Americans—while Shi’ites believe the title should be passed down by bloodline—as do modern Americans—stemming from Muhammad himself.

Consequently, each group followed their own leaders since Muhammad’s death. The Sunnis followed their Caliph, which is the same thing as a sultan, which is like a king and a pope all in one. (Since Sunnis were the vast majority, the Caliphs got to lead everybody, not just Sunnis.) The most well known example of a Caliph is the Sultan from Disney’s Aladdin. That short, fat, simple-minded-but-with-a-good-heart Caucasian represented what, undoubtedly, all Caliphs must have been like.(2)

The Shi’ites, on the other hand, followed Imams, of which there were twelve. The last Imam mysteriously disappeared in the year 874, but legend has it that he will return at the end of the world with his sidekick, Jesus,(3) to promote Islam to the dying.

Again, Jesus will return at the end of the world to promote Islam.

Another more titillating, or sexier, difference between the two sects is their views on the act of Mut’ah. Mut’ah (“marriage for pleasure”) is a temporary marriage with a pre-decided duration. No priests or witnesses need to be present, and since the expiration is fixed, no divorce procedures are necessary. Basically, the Shi’ites use Mut’ah whenever they want to have a one-night stand, to the point where one can temporarily marry a hooker with Allah’s blessing. (In their defense, it is also used in platonic situations—such as when a man and woman live together, so that the woman may dress freely; in Islamic law, women are not allowed to show a certain amount of skin, determined by the region, except around their husbands.) The Sunnis have banned Mut’ah because they hate fun.

Now, it is in no way important to know which notable factions in the Middle East belong to which sect, as most U.S. politicians don’t know. However, since it is contemptible to have the intelligence of a U.S. politician, I will do you this favor. Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda are Sunni. The Taliban is hardcore Sunni; under their rule, if a woman had her nails painted they would cut off her fingers, as the Qur’an mentioned somewhere in passing something about “dressing modestly.”(4) Saddam Hussein was Sunni—although, from the looks of it, he wasn’t the most practiced mosque-goer—yet most of Iraq is Shi’ite. The Hezbollah of Lebanon are Shi’ite, but hate the Jews with a passion that transcends religious sectionalism. And finally, Iran is, like, Shi’ite central.

I would also like to note here—because it doesn’t really fit in anywhere else—that Iran used to be the Persian Empire.(5)

Come back tomorrow when we will discuss America's role in the Middle East!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rhymes with “zoo.”
(2) Disney’s Aladdin is the most in-depth and historically accurate account of Arabian history and should be referenced often.
(3) On the advice of his agent, Jesus made a cameo appearance in the Qur’an as a lowly prophet preparing the way for Muhammad.
(4) I wish that were a joke.
(5) Isn’t that cool!

Iran: What cartoon? huh? (CS)

As reported in The Comics Journal no. 280, there is finally a winner for that Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest. Some Americans might have a dim recollection of this contest and how it was initiated in response to Danish cartoons depicting and lampooning Mohammad. In the U.S., the story about the contest was hardly a sidebar feature as it went up against reports of protests, riots and the burning of embassies across the Islamic world. It makes sense that we would forget about it in America.

What is strange, however, is that Iranians have forgotten about the contest too. Here was an issue Muslims seemed pretty worked up over and yet the winning cartoon was not published by any Iranian newspaper. TCJ shows reluctance to accept reports that "the entire affair [was] one that drew little-to-no interest from the Iranian public." And yet the winning cartoon didn't even run in the best-selling Iranian paper, Hamshahri, which sponsored the contest.

I didn't think the contest was such a bad idea. I thought it could have been an effective way to exercise some humor (rather than violence) within the situation. The winning results were (predictably) weak, and I suppose I was hoping for something more along the lines of what The Pain had to offer. But even more upsetting to me than what was chosen as a "good entry" is this lack of interest in the contest at all. It seems to indicate a disingenuous aspect to Islamic anger with the West, that there is much less frustration than advertised and without the incitement of this anger and violence from a handful of people, there would be room for more constructive ideas and methods for dealing with frustration. Or perhaps I'm reading far too much into something no one seems concerned with reading at all.

Keith Ellison Exhibits the Wisdom of a Librarian (CS)

Lefty bloggers are pretty impressed with Keith Ellison's cheeky move in not only swearing in on the Koran, but Thomas Jefferson's very own copy of it. They figure that should stick it to complaining conservatives. Though, I don't see how it helps that Ellison is swearing in on a controversial holy book used as justification by enemies of our state worldwide and then chooses a copy once owned by a radical insurgent who fought against one of our greatest allies.

Joking aside, it's actually a more complicated matter than just saying, "Well Thomas Jefferson owned a copy, so there!" It's important to see how Thomas Jefferson read and understood the Koran. It didn't take long for for conservatives to dredge up the historical reference of Jefferson's trip to Tripoli and the Muslim al-jihad fil-bahr (holy war at sea) there, justified through the Koran, that Jefferson had to put an end to.

Those who have looked into it would say that Jefferson acquired the Koran primarily for the purposes of studying law* (There is, after all, a depiction of Mohammad on a frieze in the Supreme Court, part of a series of prominent law makers in history. What, didn't you know?). Dan Riehl calls this academic speculation, but the academic speculation makes a lot more sense than his own. Kiehl's argument (and those you'll see from most commentators on the Right) lacks any sort of extensive research. But he'll have you believe that he perfectly understands the context of a singular comment made by Jefferson (his relay to Congress of the Barbary pirates use of the Koran as justification) and that it can be applied to the man's life entirely. This is what one would call a lack of historical nuance.**

Also, as someone who works very closely with the library profession, I think there is something to be said for how Jefferson chose to catalog his books. How an academic chooses to arrange his personal library says a lot about how he categorizes the world in his own mind and Jefferson was certainly very particular about the arrangement of his books. So if one were to go back in time and visit Jefferson at Monticello, where would one look on the shelf to find the Koran? Within the works on religion, right next to the Old Testament, the Bible, and books on Roman and Greek mythologies. This would support the common argument of Jefferson's deism and implies the same sort of understanding one would find in his 1777 draft of a Bill for Religious Freedom. All of it adds up to give us an idea of Jefferson's liberal character. We know Jefferson was a smart, strong, resolved, and academic individual who understood how texts could function in different ways within society. One would think that in the case of Tripoli, Jefferson saw that he wasn't at war with Islam, but with pirates who attempted to justify themselves through a religious text.

Ellison indeed made a wise move by choosing to swear in on a Koran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson, but I'm hoping more went into his decision than simply choosing along the lines of founding father/hero worship. If Ellison realized some of the historical, political, and cultural nuances involved in making such a decision, we would actually be well served to have more men like him in Congress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Those without accounts at Project Muse might not be able to access that article, but if you go searching for it, it's How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur'an
**Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if some right wingers start referring to Jefferson's slave owning, borderline vilifying Jefferson trying to get to Ellison, completely misunderstanding the historical period Jefferson was from, the culture and part of the country in which he lived, and Jefferson's wishes for an eventual end to slavery.