In a half-dozen nations, tyrants who once ruled by fear and repression have been toppled, unleashing centuries-old sectarian rivalries and bloody struggles for power. Syria’s horrific civil war is spilling into Lebanon and threatening Jordan and Turkey, while Iraq has effectively devolved into three nations — one Shiite, one Sunni, one Kurdish. In the chaos, a particularly malignant form of radical Sunni Islam, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has seized large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq….
Why is that rivalry raging now?
It has fueled conflict and repression since the dawn of Islam in the 7th century, but was ignited into a bonfire in 2003. That’s when the U.S. overthrew the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Hussein had long brutally suppressed Iraq’s Shiite majority, and his fall turned that power dynamic on its head. The new Shiite-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki marginalized Iraq’s Sunnis, denying them any real voice in the new national government.
SOURCE: The grand Shiite-Sunni struggle.
I recently read an article about how Islam needs its own Reformation. The Christian Reformation began with Martin Luther posted ninety-five complaints against the might Roman Catholic Church over 500 years ago. Up until then there were only a handful of dominant Christian churches around and RC was the major one. They told you what to believe, how much money they wanted, and where you go after you die. A lowly monk just didn’t buy that and visibly told them so. That started the flames rolling and the many different belief systems sprouting out that differed with the Roman Catholic church.
Today I am told that we have over 14,000 different versions of Christ’s church each saying they are the ones who have it right. We went from a handful to thousands because of the Reformation. Isn’t that what is currently happening with Islam. Isn’t ISIS just another version of Islam that has sprouted off the Muslim root? In some ways we don’t need an Islamic Reformation but instead an Islamic consolidation. We need some overall authority to reign in all this centuries old fighting among the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and all the other out there.
As the article above says some think the we the U.S. is responsible for much of the latest fighting in Islam. Before we invaded Iraq its leader kept an iron grip on the various Muslim sects. Since that overthrow the Middle East has exploded into one religious sect fighting another and hating all the other versions of spirituality.
We don’t need a Muslim Reformation, but just the opposite. While that is happening it would be nice is somehow we managed to get all the 14,000+ Christian sects to agree to some core beliefs but that seems almost as impossible as the former. At least we are not fighting and killing each other as our Muslim brothers are doing..
RJ's Corner - Having My Say 
I think the article severely oversimplifies a very longstanding and complex situation. First, there are many more than 2 branches of Islam. Within the sunni and shia are many offshoots who are at odds with each other (very similar to Christianity). And Islam manifests itself very differently from country to country and from urban to rural areas.
Saddam Hussein was an equal opportunity tyrant. He not only kept the radical elements of the shia in check, he also kept the sunnis in check. He was nominally considered a sunni, but only because his tribe was sunni. (We see many US “Christian” politicians who are only nominally Christian). He bought off , bribed or intimidated all groups that might oppose him and his family. His reign was not based on any religious principles.We need to remember that Saddam established a secular, Baathist one party rule, not a religious one. He tolerated anyone who did not challenge his power.
Islam is a convenient way for Americans to simplify the problems in the area. But, as in Pakistan, religion is a veneer for the underlying tribal traditions. It is not any particular brand of Islam that is the issue or problem. It is the ethnic and tribal identities and anti-modernity. After all, under Saddam Iraq had a very modern urban population, secular schools, modern hospitals, universities, etc. All destroyed by the invasion.
Ironically, Iraq’s Christians fared better under Saddam than under the current rulers. (His chief foreign minister, Tarik Aziz, was Christian) Further evidence that his rule was not based on any radical Islam.
No doubt, there are doctrinal conflicts between the Sunnis and Shias. And for the more radical elements of both these can be used to justify killing the “other”. I would suggest that in many areas religious differences are not the “cause ” of the conflict, but rather an “excuse” as a cover for other economic and ethnic reasons.
LikeLike
You are right, I give gave a simplified version but it does stand on its own…Too many different versions of all religions no matter where you look. It is as simple as that…
LikeLike
The fighting started way before the US got involved. The Iran / Iraq war was not US involved. It lasted about eight years and killed a bit over a million people. It was proven that Iraq used “outlawed chemicals” to kill both Iranians and Kurds (considered the “gypsies of the area”). That use was what got the US into the UN enforcement of no fly zones. The rest is a very tragic history.
It would be nice if all of the religions of the wold would simply hold hands and sing. Watching the destruction of ancient cities is never impressive.
LikeLike
Yes, as the source article points out this has been going on in the Middle East for1300 years so why did we think we could get them to a peace table?? No, I am not naive enough to think that we could get them to hold hands and sing but instead to just acknowledge that each has a right to coexist within their beliefs. That is so hard because each of the thousands of versions of spirituality are convinced that they alone have the “true” answer. How absurd is that very concept…. I do truly wish that if there is just one true God that he would set us straight instead of allowing us to constantly kill each other in his name. sad, sad, sad
LikeLike
Jan. I agree with you that these ethnic conflicts have been going on for centuries. Around the world. But, a small correction. The US (under Mr Reagan) actually supplied Saddam with chemical weapon components during the Iran-Iraq war. So the US was actually involved in that war.
Unless memory fails me the No-Fly Zones were established after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which was a few years later. There were started under Bush, on a weekly basis and continued under Clinton. Over 10 years of bombing Iraqi anti-aircraft positions. That was the key reason Iraq could not put up a fight when the US invaded and occupied. (After the first Gulf War was over the No-Fly Zones were found to be a violation of international law by the secretary general of the UN. The French stopped flying. The US and UK continued the flights any way.)
LikeLike
Interesting take Joseph. I guess history is all about how you believe it to be. My study and yours vary a great deal.
RJ absolutely! Sad,sad,sad
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment Jan. This post was intended to be not so much about the history than about trying to get all the participants to just coexist in their beliefs and quit killing each other in the name of God. The more I studied theology of religious beliefs the more depressed I become and that is starting to turn me off to the very concept of God… If he is real how can he let us go on doing what we are doing????
LikeLike
RJ. As a long life atheist I can feel your pain. Too many people misuse religion. (Mainly it is politicians who do so) I know a number of fine Christians who practice a “Christ-like” religion. But so many others practice an Old testament “give em hell” religion. Same with Islam. So many practice the 5 pillars but others pick and choose from the Qu’ran to justify violence.
As an atheist my take is this.If people really practiced what they claimed they believe we would not have wars, need welfare or health insurance,etc. It is a matter of attitude.
Jan. I respectfully disagree that history is about how you believe. History is history. All the stuff in my post is documented as having happened. Now, we may interpret it and evaluate it differently, but it happened.
LikeLike
This discussion is veering way off topic but I didn’t want to leave it here. I, like many others, absolutely cling to the concept of God. The world around us is just too ordered for it to be random.
There are some who pompously give up way to easily and say “there is no god since I can’t understand him” while others latch onto the easiest god they can find. That is not God’s problem but ours. Just because we can’t get a firm understanding of God with our feeble minds does not mean that he doesn’t exist. I, along with Francis Collins (the head of the genome project) and many other Christian scientists firmly stand by that statement. If we accepted the fallacy that just because we can’t understand something it must not be true we would very likely still be in the dark ages. Searching for the nature of God is hard work and that is how it should be. Too many just seem to settle for the easy answers.
God is God and it is not up to us to define or box her in with our puny thought processes….
LikeLike