What is so Radical about Iraq's Rebel Cleric?

[Larkspur]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0824-07.htm

The standoff in Najaf has cast the spotlight on the rebel Shia cleric Muqtada Sadr. While the Western media cannot resist calling him "radical", it is in fact very difficult to find any basis for this description.

He has been consistent in his staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq. "There can be no politics under occupation, no freedom under occupation, no democracy under occupation," he said this month. What is so radical about that? If his Mehdi Army were patrolling and bombing London or New York, I would be astonished to find media descriptions of US and British resistance as "radical".

His opposition to foreign occupation cannot be explained away as support for Saddam Hussein, who persecuted the Shias so ruthlessly. Sadr and his family were vehemently opposed to the dictator and his regime, and for this they paid a heavy price - Sadr's uncle was executed in 1980, and his father and two brothers were shot dead in February 1999.

Although Sadr's opposition to occupation has been consistent, he only turned to armed resistance more than a year after the invasion. His sermons previously called for non-violent resistance.
<SNIP>

[babylon_system]

1. He is radical because he advocates armed resistance

He is against the US AND Israeli occupation of the Mideast and he asserts that, if necessary, armed resistance is an obligation to liberate Arab/Muslim territory from foreign occupation.

Welcome to the 21st century Crusades.