Muqtada Al-Sadr called for a truce between the government and his militia, six days after the government cracked down against his bases in Basra,Iraq. While he asked the government to release his supporters from prison and stop raiding their homes, he ordered his men to put down their arms and stop attacking the armed forces "because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces." In class we had discussed that a Fatwa, (a religious sanction obtained from a cleric legitimizing an attack) could count as one of the factors that made Islamic terrorism more dangerous, because people seek Fatwas from someone who shares a similar viewpoint, and some individuals (like Bin Laden) even issue Fatwas themselves, thus legitimizing their actions. However, this particular case points towards a positive usage of the Fatwa. Here it is issued to stop violence rather than escalate it. Though there have been reported instances of violence after the statement has been released, it will be interesting to see how this truce develops.
2 comments:
I thought this was interesting too. In the article I read, it mentions that though he told his followers to stop fighting the government, he did not tell them to turn in their weapons, which the government had asked for. I wonder what exactly this means. I understand that over there, a weapon is a very important thing, so I can understand someone wanting to keep theirs. But I also think maybe he wants his followers to stay armed in the event that they fight again. This seems to be a very shaky ceasefire, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
I totally agree with you. By saying “anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us,” he made it very clear to his followers that he was against any kind of violence. However,it is wise of him NOT to give up the arms. There is always always a possibility that either the militia or the government would defect on the terms of the ceasefire. I think it would be too risky for him and his followers to give up their arms in case the government tried to attack them there after.
Unless there is a neutral third party to ensure that both parties keep their terms,it will be a pretty shaky cease fire.
Post a Comment