Conflicts between the Majority Shia Adherents and the Minority Sunni Adherents - Essay Example

Al Malaki however did not lead fairly as the functionaries of his regime were mainly made of Shi’a adherents. I agree that the US did not favour the Shi’a though they may be due to the long conflicts between the two sides, and found it necessary to have them holding all the leadership banners.

Response 2 The argument that. the intense conflicts between the Majority Shi’a adherents and the minority Sunni adherents have been apparent since the death of Prophet Mohhamed is correct. Both groups have been trying to rule over each other with violence and turmoil going back to when their two leaders were chosen. In agreement with the argument, the war between the Sadam Regime and the Shi’a fitted the definition of a civil war. The Shi’a, the Kurds, and the Sunnis all shared the state of Iraq with the Sunnis having more privileges compared to the majority Shi’a Muslims thus bringing eruptions of revolutions.

The revolutions were however unable to shake the Saddam regime and thus the involvement of the United States. During the invasion, however, the US did not take any sides and was trying to bring peace to the state. Sadam was the enemy but not the Shi’a community and on bringing him down, they even started forming coalitions with other Shi’a leaders. A good example is the case of Abul Abed from Amariyah2. Response 3 Each group believing that their rivals follow false leaders thus being betrayers of Islam has brought about the sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

For the faith to be cleansed, each believes that they must eradicate the other group. Therefore, the question of whether they will ever reconcile is somehow already answered. However, they are all Muslims who believe that there is no other God but Allah, believe in the Koran and the Prophet Mohammad, and will therefore seem to come together in case of a common enemy. As stated, forging a common enemy towards the Islamic sects will bring them together but as soon as the threat is over, they will never allow themselves to be led by the other.

They see each other as apostates3. One group believes that the Prophets son in law is the true leader while the other believes that the prophet’s father-in-law is the true leader. It does not matter that the two groups pray to the same God, their ideologies that date back to the demise of Prophet Mohammed will always bring them to conflicts.