Copyright to Adrian Fisk, http://adrianfisk.photoshelter.com/

By Connor Shirley

On Tuesday, over 150 female students were poisoned by contaminated drinking water. There is not much information available, but it currently suspected that the a radical Islamist group is responsible. The area that the attack occurred in, south Afghanistan, was once a hotbed of Taliban activity. Under the rule of the Taliban females were not allowed into schools and various other rights and privileges were taken away, simply because they were women. This type of attack is not unheard of; there are still acid attacks on some women, where cheap acid is purchased at a hardware store and is promptly thrown at the face of a woman who has somehow offended a man.

One of the interesting questions that this horrific event raises is whether this type of violence is a result of a particular school of thought in Islam or merely sadistic individuals doing sick things under the name of something bigger than themselves. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan until 2001, and under their rule there had been intense implementation of sharia law, focusing on the glory and greatness of God. Public beatings were commonplace, to show the other women the consequences for ‘inappropriate’ behavior, like shopping without the company of a man. Things like alcohol and clapping during sporting events were banned, and political power was reformed in a much more tribal method, if only to the Pashtun tribe. The group was also completely anti-Israeli and anti-Shi’a. This system of rule gave brutal men a chance to have the power to behave as they wished; abuse was commonplace, and any progress made for women in the last 1000  years was completely lost.

In Western media, various unsubtle remarks began to demonize Islam as a religion that hates women, and one of the major ‘reasons’ for the invasion of Iraq was to liberate women.  It is an important distinction to make that Islam itself is just as inherently oppressive of women than Christianity is; it is all in the interpretation of religious texts that makes the difference. The argument I’m trying to put forward is that the Taliban, a terrible and vicious group, were the ones who enables cruel men, not the religion of Islam as a whole, a distinction that is not always explicitly stated in a lot of the news sources I read. 

As for the role of the Taliban in this attack, it is possible that this poisoning is part of the wave of new wave of spring offensives the terrorist group is now pushing. Afghanistan will be under attack by this group fora long time; violence is a way of life for these people, and it is hard to reason with a group with so much zealotry. All the west can do is try to keep the fight away from children. 

Men flagellating themselves in a typical ashura celebration

By Connor Shirley

The difference between a Shi’a Muslim and a Sunni Muslim might be hard for an outsider to notice at first. If you observed them pray, you would see them pray 5 times a day towards the same direction, at the same time, with a very similar technique. If you listened to the sermon, however, the difference between them would become far more noticeable. Shi’a Islam tends to focus on martyrdom and suffering and fights against tyranny a lot more than Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam is by far the most popular type of Islam, with some 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni. Shi’a Islam is mostly practiced in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and a notable population in Nigeria.

What is the origin of this difference?

To be put simply, it is the result of a political split. After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the Arabic community (or umma) was somewhat divided on who should lead. Most favored Abu Bakr, a close friend and compatriot of the Prophet; another group, known as shi’at ‘ali or Party of ‘Ali pushed for the leadership to remain in the family of the Prophet, and the next leader should be ‘Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Abu Bakr was chosen to lead the umma, to the dismay of the shi’at ‘ali (which soon became shortened to Shi’a)  After this moment in history, the Islamic community would be constantly divided, with one group claiming that Abu Bakr was an invalid ruler and ‘Ali should have ruled.

Unfortunately the Sunnis have not been very nice to the Shi’as, to say the least.  Every single one of their Imams, who are special religious leaders after ‘Ali considered to be immaculate and holy men with special knowledge of God and the Qur’an, was either killed or imprisoned by the Sunni ruler of the time. This has lead to a strong sense of rebellion inside the mindset of a typical Shi’a Muslim; for instance, the celebration ashura memorializes the martyrdom of the grandson of the Prophet, Husayn, and consists of a dramatic and graphic retelling of the events leading up to his death and the adult men will sometimes cut their foreheads, letting the blood stream down their face in a show of regret and suffering.

Why does it matter?

There has been tension if not outright violence between these two groups for hundreds of years, and in the current age this is no exception. Iran is a Shi’a majority country, and this (along with a great deal of other things) has lead to tension between Iran and it’s neighbors. Countries like Iran and Yemen have a Shi’a minority that is currently in power, resulting in an interesting power dynamic. It’s also important to understand the difference between the two groups when talking about radical and extremist groups; a Shi’a terrorist group would have entirely different goals than a Sunni group. Shi’a mindset has always focused more on fighting tyranny than Sunni Islam, and this has resulted in some more radical Shi’a traditionalists to be labelled as terrorists.

Having a basic understanding of this split and the reasons behind it are vital to understanding a lot of the dynamics in the Middle East, and will help decipher the majority of the news coverage coming out of the region.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

from National Yemen

By Connor Shirley

Yemen has received very limited media coverage over the past couple of weeks, overshadowed by the civil war in Syria. Yemen is a country that still has a strong al-Qaeda presence, which has taken advantage of the chaos after the recent deposing of their president Saleh to attempt to gain several strategic town and cities. The government of Yemen declared war on al-Qaeda last year, and has seen some success, especially after the death of leader and figurehead Anwar al-Awlaki. A recent attack in Sanaa has been connected to al-Qaeda, and some armed militant groups in the north have proclaimed themselves to be al-Qaeda.

However, there is a more pressing concern currently unfolding in Yemen. Sanaa is currently being armed and fortified by various tribes and militias, preparing for a mass conflict. As of the writing of this article, no war has erupted into the streets, but the next few days are going to be stress-filled and dangerous. Southern Yemen is also experiencing civilian and militant casualties as two different groups battle for supremacy, the army and a group also claiming to be al-Qaeda.

The war against al-Qaeda has been brutal, but support from the U.S. and other anti-terrorist groups has been key in arming and training ground troops and air pilots. Yesterday a report from Sanaa listed 43 casualties, all tied to al-Qaeda and all armed insurgents. The most interesting part of that air strike is the rationale; the insurgents attacked the oil pipeline that is vital to Yemeni (and equally important American) interests, so a very strong retribution was necessary.

Yemen faces many of the same problems that Syria is facing; splits among ethnic and religious lines, entrenched old regime members, propaganda and difficulty spreading factual information, and terrorist groups attempting to stall all peace processes. But I don’t think Yemen will get any more support or attention from America, not while Syria (neighbor to Israel) is facing difficulties. That is, of course, assuming Yemen’s oil pipeline remains secure.

Credit to Christian Science Monitor

By Connor Shirley

The streets of Port Said, Egypt continue to be unsafe after the riots last week following a soccer game. Death tolls range from 79  to 73, not counting the people killed or injured in the street encounters with the military in the days afterwards. Some of the violence has spilled over to Syria, the countries already unstable populace unable to withstand any sort of violent shocks. The official story is that both team’s fans, outraged by the game, rushed each other with various weapons, including knives and clubs. Much of the outcry from the public is blaming the security forces of the game for allowing such weapons to be smuggled into the game. The soccer board federation’s president in Egypt has resigned, along with his board of directors.

The facts do not add up to soccer riot. Various reports from firsthand witnesses state the doors to exit the stadium were barred and that the security guards were complicit in the attack. Meanwhile, various law officials failed to respond on time and accusations are being stated that it was an engineered attempt to ‘overthrow the state’.

Now, whether the soccer riots were manufactured or not is inconsequential. We might never know the real truth to what happened in the stadium, all we can do is try and see how the event is going to affect Egyptian politics.

There are still elections ongoing in Egypt. However, perhaps due to the soccer incident and other destabilizing events, voter turnout has dropped drastically. The next round of voting is on Valentines day; hopefully, the populace will be secure enough to come out and vote. The real point to be made here is that as incidents like this keep happening, a population already tired of revolution and bloodshed might lose some of their gumption for rebuilding government. This is EXACTLY  what the old regime supporters want; a tired youth. My prediction is that there will be more of these incidents, and at the root of them will be an regime supporter who is still pushing for military control.

By Connor Shirley

There is a general lack of knowledge about the Middle East in the Western countries, especially in America. I’ve decided to go through some of the more common misconceptions about the area and the culture(s) and hopefully clear some things up. The list is not ordered in any specific way.

1.      Islam does not allow for the belief in Jesus.

This is one that I see propagated on sort of ‘pop news’ media sources. That is entirely untrue. Islamic tradition (and when I say Islam, I mean traditional Sunni Islam, the kind practiced by some 75-90% of all Muslims) states that Jesus was real, was born from the Virgin Mary and did in fact perform a number of miracles, and was a prophet. However, he was not THE prophet, a key distinction. Islam has a number of prophets, the 25 mentioned in the Qur’an are the ones ‘counted’ by Muslim theologians. Jesus was one prophet in a long chain of prophets ending with Muhammad.

2.      Everyone in the Middle East speaks the same language, Arabic.

Nope! While Arabic is the official language of almost every country in the Middle East, the main language actually spoken can be far different. In Iran, Persian (or Farsi) is the main language used in day to day life, a leftover of the Persian Empire. Afghanistan also has a large percentage of Persian speakers, but also a significant number of Pashtu speakers, which is a member of the same linguistically family as Persian. Even between countries that do speak Arabic, they can speak different dialects of Arabic. In Egypt, for example, Egyptian Arabic is spoken, which varies quite substantially from the Levantine Arabic spoken in Lebanon, which in turn varies from the colloquial Arabic spoken in Iraq.

 3.      The Middle East is one big desert.

While there are some significantly large deserts in the Middle East, there is also the area known as the ‘Cradle of Civilization’ between the Tigris and Euphrates River. This region has lush plains and palm trees, with very fertile soil for growing. Many early civilizations utilized this to help build stable communities that didn’t have to rely on hunter-gatherer societal structure.

4.  Jihad means ‘holy war’.

This one is pretty prominent actually. Jihad actually refers to the concept of struggle. One of the most common uses is in reference to ‘striving in the way/method of God”. There are anecdotal reports of Muhammad saying that the greater jihad is the internal jihad, referring to ones on struggle with holiness and purity instead of an actual physical battle. The term has been used by extremists to try and suggest that battling the United States is a holy cause, and Western media sources have reciprocated by using the word without knowing its meaning.

Hopefully that clears up some common misrepresentations of the Middle East out there. Feel free to ask about anything else in the comment section!

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions and not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.