In Mideast, religious wars often a front for political rivalries

[rug]

Regional opponents are finding sectarianism to be a useful tool, but experts warn of unintended consequences



Supporters of the Shiite Houthi movement shout anti-Saudi slogans during a demonstration in Sanaa on April 10, 2015 (Photo credit: Mohammed Huwais/AFP)

By Sara Hussein
April 11, 2015, 10:28 am

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AFP) — Across the Middle East, fierce rivalry between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran is heightening sectarian tensions, even in conflicts that analysts say are primarily political.

Riyadh and Tehran adhere to different branches of Islam and have often backed members of their own sect in regional conflicts.

But analysts say their rivalry is driven largely by politics, with sectarian sentiment more a useful — if dangerous — tool.

Sectarian rhetoric is on display most explicitly in the language used by militant groups.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-middle-east-religious-wars-a-front-for-political-rivalries/

[safeinOhio]

1. great excuse

to take your stuff and women.

[cbayer]

2. In other news, the earth's environment is changing in a very alarming way….

even is some people will adamantly deny it.

This has been going on as long as there have been humans, imo.

[Cartoonist]

3. Another shameful attempt at deflection

Another example of: Its not religion's fault!

[rug]

4. I understand how you reflexively reject political analysis when it brushes up against dogma.

[Leontius]

5. Some times the religion and the politics become so intertwined as to become

impossible to find a difference.

[rug]

6. That is true.

But calling an attempt to unravel the strands a "shameful deflection" suggests someone prefers not to understand what's going on.

[edhopper]

8. Especially in a region were all politics

are subject to religious control.

[cbayer]

9. The article doesn't say that, but it would be as bad as saying "It's all religions's fault"

which is the tune you are stuck on.

[edhopper]

7. The leaders may have a political and religious agenda

but if they are "using religion" to motivate their followers, doesn't that mean religion is the main reason the followers are pursuing these conflicts?
Could they pursue these conflicts on a purely political agenda without evoking religion?
Could they get the people who actually do the fighting and destruction to act if they were not doing it for their religion?

[cbayer]

10. What if they are using politics to motivate their followers, does that mean that

politics is the main reason the followers are pursuing the conflicts?

There is no need to make this one or the other. Both politics and religion are powerful forces and when they combine, their power can become extreme.

By holding religion primarily responsible, one may miss the opportunity to understand the complexity of the situation and may attempt to address it with only half the picture.

Could they pursue these conflicts on a purely religious agenda without evoking politics?
Could they get the people who actually do the fighting and destruction to act as if they were not doing it for their politics?

Would that make it better?

[edhopper]

11. It;s the author who is making it mainly one

But analysts say their rivalry is driven largely by politics

To dismiss religion as a minor roll is a mistake.

Do you think the ISIS destruction of ancient sites is mainly political or religious?

As I agreed earlier they are intertwined, especially in countries where the politics is controlled by religion.

[cbayer]

12. And I think it is you that is making it mainly the other.

The truth is likely that it is both and neither should be dismissed.

I think ISIS is both political and religious. What do you think?

I also agree that they are intertwined, particularly in countries where religion is controlled by politics.

[edhopper]

13. Do you think their destruction of ancient Babylonian sites

is political?

Or mainly religious?

[cbayer]

15. Like I said, I think it's both. What do you think?

They destroyed Saddam Hussein's tomb. Political or religious?

Trying to make this primarily religious misses the point, and that's a dangerous thing to do.

[edhopper]

18. I think the destruction of ancient sites is mostly religious

it serves little political purpose.

Saddam's tomb is a red herring to my question.

[cbayer]

21. It serves little purpose of any kinds except to get attention

and terrorize people.

On what basis can you distinguish the political from the religious motivation?

Saddam's tomb is not a red herring. It's the clue to the puzzle.

[Leontius]

16. I think the entire basis for their actions is religion.

Call it a perversion of or perfection of religion it still forms the basis of who and what they are.

[edhopper]

20. Their political agenda is closely tied to their religious one

and I think religious is more of the motivation.

[cbayer]

22. That's a completely arbitrary call and primarily based on what you want the truth to be.

Not very free thinking.

[edhopper]

26. As oppose to you

who does have a handle on the truth? Petty jibes at my thinking are poor argument.

When the actors constantly refer to Islam as their motivation, can we not accept that that is a large motivated factor?

[cbayer]

28. I don't think I have a handle on the truth which is why I don't take a stand that it's one thing or

the other. I readily acknowledge that religion is a factor. I also acknowledge that politics is a factor.

You want it to be primarily one way.

[edhopper]

32. depends on the situation

But we absolutely see they are intertwined in many counties. Political decisions made by a Theocracy.

The author states it is a small factor, I disagree.

Do you?

[cbayer]

34. I don't agree that the author states it is a small factor.

The article addresses Sunni and Shiite conflicts and I think there is a lot of evidence that this is a longstanding and highly political conflict.

Does religion play a role? Of course it does.

Is religion used as a reason to fight all kinds of wars that have to do with power and land and resources and control? Of course it does.

I don't think it's easy to tease out what is religious and what is political, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that both are at play.

Religious decisions made by a the political group in power and political decisions made by the theocrats.

There is no need make this one or the other or to even make it one more than the other. But if both are not taken into consideration, one will certainly miss the whole picture.

[cbayer]

23. What do you base that on?

Do you dismiss all political motivation?

[rug]

17. No.

The main reason would be whatever cause is harnessing religion, and other ideologies, to advance it. Whether supporters act on religious propaganda, or some other propaganda, doesn't change the nature of the political acts.

Yes. See the Spanish-American War, for but one example.

Yes. Same answer.

The thing is, religion is one of the best ideologies through which to exert political control. That's why it comes up so often. But there are other equally powerful ideologies that are contenders for the title.

[edhopper]

19. I don't think they act without

considering God as one of the main motivations. That is religious IMO

[rug]

29. The Houthis in Yemen are far more a respons more to Bush's invasion of Iraq than to Allah.

That's politics, nationalism and a half dozen other ideologies at work.

[edhopper]

31. and religipn

Or do you think tat has nothing to do with it at all.

Is Al Queda not motivated by religion at all? The Taliban? ISIS?

Fnding a instance she it is less a factor didn't negte it elsewhere?

[rug]

33. What did you post downthread about strawmen?

Religion is one of at least half a dozen ideologies at play.

What you don't get is that religion is commonly used for nonreligious, purely secular purposes. You then compound that error by asserting that use is the essence of religion and the intractable result of religion. Aka, "religion poisons everything." I reject that simplistic thinking.

Sorry, your last sentence is garbled. If you're saying this poltical use of religion is inherent in religion, I say this use is for political, not religious purposes. Put out your best example to the contrary.

[pinto]

24. Is narcissism political or religious? Is social media fame political or religious? Are stalkers?

All play a role in this madness, imo.

[edhopper]

25. So religion plays only a minor roll in your opinion

as the author says? And it is not a motivation of the leaders at all?

[pinto]

27. No. Just not the sole role. I think we would do well to avoid simplistic assumptions.

Either / Or, one or the other, etc. There's few such polar situations I can think of in real life.

[edhopper]

30. who says it's the sole cause?

I see a lot more post saying it's not religious at all than ones that say politics and other things aren't involved.

I think "it's only religion and nothing else" is a straw man.

[pinto]

35. I'm just saying that I think it's a mix of things - political, religious, cultural, economic, etc.

Agree, the either/or, one or the other is a straw man. The reality is more varied than that from what I can discern. My point is that posing the situation as "it's only one thing and nothing else" is missing it. Regardless of what that "one thing" is.

(aside) We may be parsing phrases and ascribing intents here to little constructive purpose. To take step back, it's an interesting topic. The who, what, where and why of it all. Much of it remains a conundrum to me.