Sunni and Shi'a Terrorism: Differences That Matter

[Rex Brynen]

Several thoughts on this interesting monograph:

Importantly, this study does not argue or imply that violence perpetrated by Sunni or Shi’a extremist groups is carried out for reasons that are inherent to one or the other tradition of Islam. There is no evidence sought or identified in this work contending that historical patterns of terrorist attacks by organizations identifying themselves as Shi’a, for example, are pre‐determined by Shi’a theology or philosophy. What this study does suggest, however, is that those Shi’a organizations that have conducted terrorism in non‐combat zones display several preferred operational patterns that contrast markedly from their Sunni counterparts.

Indeed, most of the Shi'ite cases relate to Iran, Hizbullah, or both. Given this, and the conclusion above, I wonder whether its really useful to speak of a mode of "Shi'ite terrorism" at all, given that the events data is largely driven by two (rather rational) actors.

Related to this is the issue of how terrorist "incidents" are coded:

• Only terrorism in "non-combat zones" is counted. From an Iranian point of view, however, the GCC states certainly would have been considered a combat zone in the 1980s, given active and extensive Gulf financing of the Iraqi war effort.
  
• Similarly, by any definition Lebanon was an active combat zone in the 1980s, given the Israeli occupation—although it is not listed as one. It is not clear to me whether Amal violence against civilians during the War of the Camps (1985-87) is counted.
  
• I'm equally unclear why some combat zones are excluded in analysis of waves of Sunni terrorism—if I read Table 2 correctly, Chechnya doesn't count, but Algeria does. On the other hand, Map 3 shows only 168 terror attacks in North Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. Given that this was the monthly (or even weekly) toll at the height of the Algerian civil war, I can only assume that Algeria is excluded (although it is not shown as such).

I'm always wary about data drawn from large-N data quantitative sets without a very full description of what is coded, how, and what the collection biases might be.

[George L. Singleton]

Rex:

I am enlightened by you two younger focused experts regarding Sunni and Shiia terrorism comparisons.

Let me suggest a theological/historical simplified fact which does in fact drive both groups from a religious perspective, in my humble view.

Israel.

The core issue is and always will be religions or theological. Who was God's chosen among the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael, first born of Hagar, or Isaac, born 13 years later of Abraham's wife Sarah.

Among my moderate Muslim friends here in the US are of the Agha Khan sect of Shiia Islam. They are more willing to sit down over coffee or tea (or a Coke, my preference) and tell me that the issue, over and over, to the total Muslim world is Jerusalem; Israel's occupation (their view, not mine) of Palestine/Arab home lands, etc.

Look forward to more from you two, Rex, and you guys are the modern front who can stimulate and document very well.

[Rex Brynen]

Israel

It depends on which group we are talking about.

For Palestinians, the issue is as much nationalist and religious, as evidenced by similarity in views held by Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Of course, the rise of Hamas may reflect a shift here.

In Lebanon, I don't really think Sunnis and Shiites see the issue much differently, and I doubt they do in Iraq either.

For Arabs more broadly, the issue can be both religious and ethnic.

Outside the Arab world, the salience of the Palestinian issue drops substantially. Opinion polls show, for example, that while Pakistanis think its a relatively important issue, Iranians and Indonesians think it is much less so. I'm speaking here, of course, of public opinion at large—not necessarily the views of radical Islamists.

Sorry this is a short reply—I'm rushed of my feet preparing for some travel.

[George L. Singleton]

Rex and JEDBURGH

I see due to Rex's interim answer two questions here of which one was being discussed by me, Sunni and Shiia origins to both have the same starting point, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. Hence the lineage (the Bible gives us) of both sons of Abraham by two different women, Hagar and Sarah, being blessed of God, but Judiasm and Christianity being of one line and today's Islam believing they are (paramountly) of the other line.

Thus, apart from future private dialogue I hope to have with Rex, I'd like to lay out some questions here for others to join in discussing, understanding that I am an old coot and want to the extent possible to keep the two lines or threads viewed, at least by me, as the Muslims v. Jews/Christians belief system that drives terrorism and violence (my view) today, separate and apart from the fact of prior to 1947 the coexistance of Muslims, Christians, and a few Jews living together in what used to be old Palestine/Samaria.

Here are some items for others to think about, research, and then comment on, which I would enjoy seeing others views on:

1. As Muhammed was first a Christian in a primitive church in what is today Saudi Arabia, then "withdrew" from membership having his own vision,

2. And since history reports that Muhammed was illiterate, could not read nor write, and since Muhammed went into a cave and came out (we are told by Islam) with their Holy Quaran, who wrote the book and how?

3. I understand that since 1995 Bethlehem which formerly was majority Palestinian Christian is today about 95% Palestinian Muslim majority. Some alledge the Palestinian Christians fled fighting with Israel, others say the Palestinian Muslims drove them out. What say you?

4. I will admit that my local Post Office Clerk, who is a Greek American, is married to a Palestinian Christian, and his Mother in Law, who is native Palestinian Christian, "hates" Israel and all Jews. So, some one and on validation that at least "some" Palestinian Christians resent Israels existance.

5. I note on Internet sources that in 2005 Palestinian Muslims rioted and burned a Palestinian Christian village to the ground, killing many Palestinian Christians over a Palestinian Christian dating a Palestinian Muslim, which the article alledges is verboten. Comments and views?

6. Finally, as I tend to think from here with friendship here who are from and return "over there" yearly, we have good friends who are Syrian Catholics here. Wife is an MD, husband owns a string of self-founded restaurants. They tell me that inside Syrian the Christians in general try to stay/live in the mountains to be more removed and safe from the majority of Syrian Muslims. Others views and comments here.

Summarized, the theme of this thread was and I hope in the main will remain what is going on by/about Sunnis and Shiias in today's trouble world. I understand Rex's interest in delineating that all Sunnis and all Shiias are not terrorists, but today's world based on opinion polls over there suggests that most all Muslims, be they Sunni or Shiia, have a negative opinion of Christians, Jews, and of course the West in general.

[Bob's World]

Personally, I think everyone can set their Qurans down and instead pick up some histories of western engagement in the Middle East and North Africa; and particularly those that focus on the Cold War era.

The issues driving violence in Iran, Lebannon, and linked to Palestine are largely Nationalist driven. Iran is largely Shia and feels (reasonably) that they are being deined opportunity to achieve their full potential as a Nation.

The Sunni populaces are largely in states that have goverments that were either established, sustained, or at least widely supported, by Western influences during the Cold War. The issues driving violence out of these populaces are not Nationalist in nature, but are instead largely populace driven; as populaces seek the opportunity provided by the end of the Cold War (catalyst), fueled by globalization (the great wild card and accelerant of change) to emerge from under Western influence and seek self-determination.

This has very little to do with religion, and a whole lot to do with the governmental situation in the states these populaces reside.

A quick look at the break down of where the foreign fighters in Iraq come from bears this out. First, they are a tiny minority of the fighers; and second they largely are Sunni's who come from states allied with the West. If you believe that Phase one to a successful insurgency at home is to break the support of the US/West to your home governance, you go to where the US is to try to motivate them to withdraw. Thus the shift of Foreign fighters back to Afghanistan as the US shifts there as well. Iraq is not the issue for them, wearing out the U.S. is.

Similarly, if you are, say Saudi Arabia, and not particularly wanting a Shia dominated democracy (strike one and two in their eyes) on your Northern border, it is reasonable that they might not try too hard to stop the flow of their own insurgent populace from leaving town to take their show on the road to Iraq. That same Saudi government is also very interested in keeping Iran in check. That seems to explain a lot about why they do so little to help resolve the Palestinian issue...if that issue continues to fester, Iran stays plugged in, and the US stays focused on Iran as the bad guy. Looked at in this light the instability between Isreal and Pasetine and Lebannon is very good for the Saudi Royals as it helps them keep the Iranians in check.

When it comes to intrigue, Americans are WAY out of their league compared to the masters of intrigue that run Middle Eastern governments. Not everything is what it seems.

[George L. Singleton]

Bob, indeed your Quaker roots do heavily influence your views. Quakers are good people and if we could bottle your peace and goodwill nature and inject it into the terrorists we could perhaps get somewhere.

But Islam as interpreted/misinterpreted by Sunni vs. Shia groups all over South Asia is the breath and existance of all the people there, just as you admit to being influenced by your Quaker roots.

Islam as interpreted by the line of Ayatollas in Iran drove out the Shah, who of course was pro-West, for example. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.

The Shah's father was pro-Nazi and the Allies removed him from office circa 1942/43, and his son, the last Shah of Iran who abdicated in 1980, took his place.

Saudi Arabia's influence in the Muslim/Middle Eastern world is a function of (1) having the Islamic major holy places, the site of the Haj for all Muslims of all strikes, within it's borders and (2) the world price of oil...which as it erodes is eroding the power and influence of the Saudi Royal family.

If you want to understand the terrorists modus operandi (my view, of course), you have the camp which wants a restoration of the caliphate, which is 100% Islamic religion driven. Sime clearly want to revive the old Ottoman Empire...to be headed by a religious cleric as Caliph.

Not to drone on, "nationalism" is a Western term as used by you here. When you are dealing with hundreds of millions of illiterate people whose only means of knowing what is happening in their own nations, let alone worldwide, is a battery operated radio or TV, you are not dealing with people who are about nationhood nor seeking democracy. They are merely "getting by" and sustained by whichever version of Islam is being used to manipulate them.

However, your adroit answer is appreciated but I would have liked the points I questioned answered instead of evaded, but that is your right, of course.

[Bob's World]

Good points all, and certainly the majority western perspective. I don't have time to give you fair comment now, but will, as this is critical to shaping proper engagement. Clearly what we are doing now does not work, and it is based, by the way, on the majority position that you convey very well.