The Holy Shrine of Islam

I keep hearing this blather about the onus being on the U.S. and multi-national force, and on the Iraq security forces, to keep clear of any harm to or fighting near/in the Imam Ali shrine in central Najaf, Iraq. The argument revolves around the "holy" status of the shrine (Ali, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammed, is apparently buried under the shrine).

What I fail to understand is why Muslims and others seem to hitch onto this "holy" line. I have no doubts that the shrine/mosque is holy to that religion under normal circumstances. I say the same for the Beth Israel temple in Capital City, USA or St. Patrick Church in Anytown, USA.

But the argument falls apart when we realize that militant-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr is holed up in the shrine compound, with a number of supporters, and is firing rockets, grenades, and bullets at Iraqi, U.S. and multinational forces, as well as at Iraqi citizens al-Sadr determines to be against his stands. What is "holy" about using a sacred site of Islam as a de facto shield for illegitimate purposes?

How can a Muslim of ordinary conviction (or any person of reasonable sense) agree with such tactics? As a result of this warlord's holing himself up in a mosque, which the U.S. refuses to attack out of respect for its nature, this man is permitted to continue to attack, harm, and kill U.S. troops, as well as ordinary Iraqis, as well as undermine the government of Iraq.

What most incenses me is that no Muslims of national or international prominence have spoken out against using a"holy" site as the base for attacks on other humans and on a recognized, legitimate government. In fact, Wednesday night on CNN, Dilip Hiro, author of "IRAQ IN THE EYE OF THE STORM" made this preposterous statement: "So, in that sense, attacking something as sacred as the Vatican or the St. Mark's Square and that would be equivalent of Americans physically participating in attacking this shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf."

Last I checked, and I'm sure Drudge would have noted this if it happened, the Pope was not firing RPGs out the window of the Basilica, stating that he wants to be taken as a martyr, and that all of the College of Cardinals, as well as all Rome should take up arms against the Italian government and their supporters. And also, the Pope was not a renegade warlord, using his place of local worship as a shield against legitimate armed forces of the government and their allies (the U.S. and the multi-national forces).

A shrine being used as a shield for renegades and warlords and malcontents and anarchists armed with deadly weapons shooting at will is not "holy". It is a evil, and should not be tolerated. But I won't hold my breath for the international Muslim community to speak out against the desecration of a religious site by one of their own, or to speak against the bastardous use of the word "holy" to describe this site presently.

Al-Sadr chose to use Imam Ali shrine as his base. No one of Islamic authority has taken him to task for it or forcibly removed him from the shrine. Meanwhile, people are injured or die everyday that al-Sadr's warlordic siege continues.

The site stopped being "holy" once al-Sadr used it for his nefarious purposes. It is time to end this siege once and for all. Take him out, at all costs.