Shia cleric tells British Muslims not to join fight against Isis in Iraq

"The ‪#‎fatwa‬ of syed ‪#‎Sistani‬ to fight is the first ‪#‎Shia‬ fatwa since 1923. It's a fatwa for both ‪#‎Sunni‬ & Shia to fight ‪#‎ISIS‬.. Whereas our fatwa are given twice a day, for a thing & nothing! Why the response of the shia is strong to the fatwa of their ‪#‎marji‬'. Honestly, because the last don't give it according to their mood. We won't catch up with the speed of ‪#‎Qaradhawi‬ & ‪#‎Ar‬'oor, they are riding a plane made in Germany." Hassan Farhan AlMaliki a sensible 'free' Sunni scholar. أول فتوى عراقية شيعية في القتال من عام ١٩٢٣ فتوى السيستاني بمواجهة داعش الذين هم ضد السنة والشيعة معاً ونحن فتاوانا في اليوم مرتين، للشئ وضده. لماذا تكون الاستجابات الشيعية لفتاوى مراجعهم قوية؟ لأنهم بصراحة لا يخرجونها بالمزاج نحن لن نلحق على مروحة القرضاوي وعرعور، مروحة ألمانية! ههه ================= If any one is interested in actual texts in ARABIC http://www.sistani.org/images/display/Khotbah/aaa.jpg http://www.sistani.org/images/displa...8-1435h-b-.jpg There is no diplomatic solution in sight with or without almaliki, people's true intentions have nothing with him, he just provides a good cover with his actions. =====================================

Khamenei says Iran strongly opposes US intervention in Iraq Source: Reuters - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52 GMT Author: Reuters (Refiles to reinstate dropped word in 5th para) DUBAI, June 22 (Reuters) - Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed strong opposition on Sunday to intervention in Iraq by the United States or anyone else, saying Iraqis themselves could bring an end to violence there, the official IRNA news agency reported. Khamenei, who has the last word on all matters of state, added in remarks to judiciary officials that Washington aimed to keep Iraq under its control and place its own stooges in power. The conflict there was not sectarian, but was really between those who wanted Iraq in the U.S. camp and those who sought Iraq's independence, IRNA reported. "We are strongly opposed to U.S. and other (countries') intervention in Iraq," IRNA quoted Khamenei as saying. "We don't approve of it, as we believe the Iraqi government, nation and religious authorities are capable of ending the sedition. And God willing, they will do so." U.S. President Barack Obama on June 19 offered up to 300 Americans to help coordinate the fight against rapid advances by the Sunni militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which has captured swatches of northern Iraq this month. But he held off granting a request for air strikes from the Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"America is not pleased with the ongoing (political) process in Iraq, meaning the wide participation in the elections and selecting their own choice (of representatives), as the U.S. is seeking an Iraq under its hegemony and ruled by its stooges," Khamenei was quoted as saying, referring to an Iraqi parliamentary election in April.

(Reporting by Mehrdad Balali, Writing by William Maclean) ===================== I heard that nujaifi requested peshmerge assistance, is that true? Besides, didn't the people of mosul say that they do not want the iraqi army near them? Such a depressing news, this is the fault of whomever supported the syrian garbage with money and arms. U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go - WSJ Iraq's Maliki: I won't quit as condition of US strikes against Isis militants | World news | theguardian.com __________________ If you still have doubts, you have neither a brain nor a conscience. ALIRAQIA list requests amnesty for resistance fighters The dialogue has to have anti ISIS stance starting point and can start now if we can __________________ أكدت جماعة علماء العراق في محافظة البصرة، الجمعة، أن العراق يتعرض لهجمة "تكفيرية ضالة" تسعى لاقتطاع جزء من العراق وجعلها منطلقاً لنشر "الارهاب" في كافة انحاء البلاد والدول العربية، مشدداً على أن اهل السنة والجماعة هم ضد تنظيم "داعش" قولا وفعلا. وقال عضو الجماعة الشيخ محمد امين في حديث لـ"السومرية نيوز"، إنه "اذا اراد أي إمام أو معمم في العراق أن ينسب ما يحدث في الموصل إلى السنة فهو واهم"، مشيراً الى انه "لا احد يستطيع ان يتكلم باسم اهل السنة". So basically ISIS is being backed by Qatar Al-Qaeda is being backed by Saudi Arabia Once upon a time Qatar was invaded by Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia and Qatar clash over the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Al-Qaeda & Nusra were winning in Syria but then all of a sudden ISIS comes along and starts killing Al-Qaeda & Nusra and Bashar Al Asaad is able to capitalize on this division and take back the country. Which is not to say Qatar/ISIS supports Bashar its just that they couldn't stand to see Saudi/Al-Qaeda take the glory. Is this just a war between Qatar and Saudi over who will take the glory for establishing Islamic state? Because most muslims and their defenders (including Obama) wanted this since 7 years ago. I heard 500 thousands but how can they know so soon and through whom? It might but learn from the KRG and separate ourselves from KRG areas, diyala, nainawa, tikrit and anbar, the Krg do not like us and do not blame them, we do not need the elitists and whabists, let them rule themselves and let the 10 provinces keep away from the KRG and the other greedy KKK-alikes, we are being told we are not brothers, FINE. What and who does that remind you of? Almaliki is not an angel, he appoints/rejects baathis when it suits him. Kurds want to sell oil on their own while getting a share from everybody else's despite not wanting to be Iraqi( which is their right 100% ), almaliki should not have cared about kerkuk anyway even if he thinks it is not theirs, it is a good price to pay. certain sunnis want a bigger say than their size and want us to include their shady characters as if they are proud of their past deeds. This event shows the army to be not good trained killers like ISIS and the sunnis alongside them Your assertion here is misleading though . Even when Kurds sale their oil they are still getting 17% for the oil they sale and Baghdad gets 83% . I see nothing wrong with that , but Maliki want complete total control over everything . The money from sale of oil was to be deposited in Hulk Bankasi where kurds get their 17% and Baghdad gets 83% which did not make maliki happy . Kurds have all the right to do that , because Maliki is not trust worthy If that is the case, why are the tankers still at sea? http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ell-more-crude It is not like anyone in the world fears almaliki. -- While not justified on its' own (at all), it is not a reprisal either, if I had terrorism detainees and I was fighting ISIS who wants to release them as future soldiers, I would make sure they are not in a fighting condition to come back and kill me and my people, that is a Sunna set by Khalid bin al walid anyway. =================================================== / By Mike Whitney comments_image 8 COMMENTS Is the Violent ISIS Campaign in Iraq -- Funded By Our Allies -- Really An Attack on Iran? There's something fishy about official versions about what's happening in Iraq. An image grab taken from Iraqiya channel shows Iraqi Primi Minister Nuri al-Maliki delivering a televised speech in Baghdad on June 18, 2014 June 19, 2014 | There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on. And something fishy IS going on. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. I don’t know what happened in Mosul, but, I’ll tell you one thing, it wasn’t that. That story just doesn’t pass the smell test. And what happened in Mosul matters too, because nearly every journalist and pundit in the MSM is using the story to discredit Maliki and suggest that maybe Iraq would be better off without him. Haass says that it shows that the army’s “allegiance to the government is paper thin”. Gardener says its a sign of “a fast failing state.” Other op-ed writers like Nicolas Kristof attack Maliki for other reasons, like being too sectarian. Here’s Kristof: “The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. Both bear some responsibility, but, overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.” Of course, Kristof is no match for the imperial mouthpiece, Tom Friedman. When it comes to pure boneheaded bluster, Friedman is still numero uno. Here’s how the jowly pundit summed it up in an article in the Sunday Times titled “Five Principles for Iraq”:

“Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has proved himself not to be a friend of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq either. From Day 1, he has used his office to install Shiites in key security posts, drive out Sunni politicians and generals and direct money to Shiite communities. In a word, Maliki has been a total jerk. Besides being prime minister, he made himself acting minister of defense, minister of the interior and national security adviser, and his cronies also control the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry. Maliki had a choice — to rule in a sectarian way or in an inclusive way — and he chose sectarianism. We owe him nothing.” (Five Principles for Iraq, Tom Freidman, New York Times)

Leave it to Friedman, eh? In other words, the reason Iraq is such a mess, has nothing to do with the invasion, the occupation, the death squads, Abu Ghraib, the Salvador Option, the decimated infrastructure, the polluted environment, or the vicious sectarian war the US ignited with its demented counterinsurgency program. Oh, no. The reason Iraq is a basketcase is because Maliki is a jerk. Maliki is sectarian. Bad Maliki. Sound familiar? Putin last week. Maliki this week. Who’s next? In any event, there is a rational explanation for what happened in Mosul although I cannot verify its authenticity. Check out this post at Syria Perspectives blog:

“…the Iraqi Ba’ath Party’s primary theoretician and Saddam’s right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental.” (THE INNER CORE OF ISIS – THE INVASIVE SPECIES, Ziad Fadel, Syrian Perspectives)

I’ve read variations of this same explanation on other blogs, but I have no way of knowing whether they’re true or not. But what I do know, is that it’s a heckuva a lot more believable than the other explanation mainly because it provides enough background and detail to make the scenario seem plausible. The official version–the “melts away” version– doesn’t do that at all. It just lays out this big bogus story expecting people to believe it on faith alone. Why? Because it appeared in all the papers? That seems like a particularly bad reason for believing anything. And the “army melting away” story is just one of many inconsistencies in the official media version of events. Another puzzler is why Obama allowed the jihadis to rampage across Iraq without lifting a finger to help. Does that strike anyone else as a bit odd? When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression? Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response? Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News: “President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad. Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.” (Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI) Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron? “Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.” It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit? It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says: “Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times) Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad. Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this. To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.” The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit. So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did. What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says: “The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly… It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse) So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question? Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable. Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis? No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014) What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments. Let’s summarize: Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation? Yes. Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support? Yes. Has the CIA? Yes. Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power? Yes. Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence? Yes. Will Isis invade Baghdad? No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.) Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned? Yes. Is Isis a CIA creation? No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.” Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA? Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!) Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders? Yes, yes and yes. MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion(AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com. ============================================================================== Video by Fadhil al-Milani clarifies position after Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called for citizens living in Iraq to join military Share 576 1 inShare.1 Email Shiv Malik The Guardian, Sunday 15 June 2014 14.26 EDT Volunteer Iragi fighters in Baghdad carry a portrait of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Volunteer Iragi fighters in Baghdad carry a portrait of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Photograph: Reuters British Muslims have been urged by one of the UK's most senior Shia clerics not to fly to Iraq to battle militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) currently rampaging through the country. In a video appeal, Muslims were told on Friday they should not get involved in armed conflict but were asked to give "every assistance" to those fighting against Isis. The eight-and-a-half-minute video by Fadhil al-Milani, an imam from the Al-Khoei foundation in west London, came after a call during Friday prayers in Iraq by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, one of Shia Islam's most revered clerics, for citizens to bear arms and sign up for the military. Thousands of Iraqis have already heeded Sistani's request to fight Isis's forces, who have openly declared their intention to massacre Shias and destroy their holy shrines in the cities of Karbala and Najaf. Initial reporting of Sistani's call to arms caused confusion among Muslims in north-west London as some began planning travel arrangements, believing the pronouncement was an order for all Shia Muslims around the world to fight.

"Within an hour [of Sistani's broadcast] I got a phone call to say that people were already booking flights to Iraq," said Amir Taki of Ahl-ul-Bayt a Shia television channel, based in London. "People were calling the station to ask if they should go to fight. There was so much confusion," Taki said.

To stem the confusion, the English-speaking Dr Milani was asked to clarify Sistani's Arabic pronouncements and what their impact was for Shias in the west. "Dr Milani made it clear that Ayatollah Sistani was calling on citizens of Iraq living in that country only to fight and even then, only by joining the official security forces. This was not a call for open jihad." Reading this on mobile? Click here to view video In his video, which was uploaded on to YouTube, Milani said Iraqi Shias would "struggle and resist" until their "last drop of blood" but said there was "no need for anyone from outside to come and help". Innes Bowen, author of the recently published Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent , a book about Sunni and Shia networks in Britain, said it was understandable that any pronouncement by Sistani, who has millions of followers around the world, would have a huge impact in the UK. "Sistani is by far the most important cleric as far as Shia Muslims in Britain are concerned. Many people assume that Shia Muslims look to the Islamic authorities in Iran for guidance. But most Shia in Britain and around the world regard Sistani, who lives in Iraq, as far more important," Bowen said. With gruesome pictures emerging of the slaughter of Shia Muslims by Isis combatants, Taki said emotions were running very high and Britons might still travel to Iraq under their own steam especially if holy sites in Najaf and Kerbala came under attack. "Don't get me wrong, people are very emotional … they don't know what to do and you can't control people." "You can imagine obviously that there's something you kind of revere so much … your wife or your mother and she's under attack, that's how people see it – that Kerbala or Najaf are more important than their own lives. "[If an attack] happens, they would consider it – they would want to go. But they have a huge respect for Sistani and if he says do not go they have to listen to him because you don't want to create more problems," Taki said. An IT specialist from south London who preferred not be named said young Shia men he had spoken in the past couple of days were despondent. "I was at the mosque yesterday … and there are a lot of youth talking about that [going out to Iraq] … They feel helpless. Their places of worship are being attacked and they can't do nothing and that's how it all starts, from 'we can't do nothing', to packing your bags and going." He said his own children were too young to fight but said he could imagine sending them if Kerbala came under siege itself. "A lot of people [in the UK] are willing to defend Kerbala. And to be honest with you, if my son was of a much older age and he turned around to me and said, 'Look, I want to go and fight', I'd send him on his way." During the video Milani, who has a PhD in Islamic philosophy from Oxford, described Isis as "a group of terrorists" who felt "free to destroy everything, to rob, to kill and to sack" people's homelands. He stressed the fight was not a sectarian one between Shia and Sunni but a battle to defend the nation and that Shia would "struggle and resist all of this until [the] last drop of blood in our veins". However, he said: "There is no need for anyone from outside to come and help them because they are capable of doing so [themselves]. "It is the duty of all those who seek and are after justice, freedom … here to support them to offer them every assistance," he added, so that those in Iraq did not feel abandoned. The Foreign Office said that its travel advice was clear and that except for the Kurdistan region people should not be journeying to Iraq for non-essential reasons. They added that people should stay entirely clear of the Ramadi district, Falluja, and the Nineveh, Salah-ad-Din and Diyala provinces. ======== Iran vows to defend Iraq Shi'ite sites; insurgents battle for refinery Wed, Jun 18 11:19 AM EDT image 1 of 9 By Ghazwan Hassan BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Sunni rebels battled their way into the biggest oil refinery in Iraq on Wednesday, and the president of neighbouring Iran raised the prospect of intervening in a sectarian war that threatens to sweep across Middle East frontiers. Sunni fighters were in control of three quarters of the territory of the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad, an official said there, after a morning of heavy fighting at gates defended by elite troops who have been under siege for a week. A lightning advance has seen Sunni fighters rout the Shi'ite-led government's army and seize the main cities across the north of the country since last week. The fighters are led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which aims to build a Sunni caliphate ruled on mediaeval precepts, but also include a broad spectrum of more moderate Sunnis furious at what they see as oppression by Baghdad. Some international oil companies have pulled out foreign workers. The head of Iraq's southern oil company, Dhiya Jaffar, said Exxon Mobil (XOM.N) had conducted a major evacuation and BP (BP.L) had pulled out 20 percent of its staff. He criticised the moves, as the areas where oil is produced for export are mainly in the Shi'ite south and far from the fighting. Washington and other Western capitals are trying to save Iraq as a united country by leaning hard on Shi'ite Prime Minister to reach out to Sunnis. Maliki met Sunni and Kurdish political opponents overnight, concluding with a frosty, carefully staged joint appearance at which an appeal for national unity was read out. In a televised address on Wednesday Maliki appealed to tribes to renounce "those who are killers and criminals who represent foreign agendas". But so far Maliki's government has relied almost entirely on his fellow Shi'ites for support, with officials denouncing Sunni political leaders as traitors. Shi'ite militia - many believed to be funded and backed by Iran - have mobilised to halt the Sunni advance, as Baghdad's million-strong army, built by the United States at a cost of $25 billion, crumbles. Like the civil war in Syria next door, the new fighting threatens to draw in regional neighbours, mustering along sectarian lines in what fighters on both sides depict as an existential struggle for survival based on a religious rift dating to the 7th Century. HOLY SHRINES Iran's President Hassan Rouhani made the clearest declaration yet that the Middle East's main Shi'ite power, which fought a war against Iraq that killed a million people in the 1980s, was prepared to intervene to protect Iraq's great shrines of Shi'ite imams, visited by millions of pilgrims each year. "Regarding the holy Shi'a shrines in Karbala, Najaf, Kadhimiya and Samarra, we announce to the killers and terrorists that the great Iranian nation will not hesitate to protect holy shrines," Rouhani said in an address to a crowd on live TV. He said many people had signed up to go to Iraq to fight, although he also said Iraqis of all sects were prepared to defend themselves: "Thanks be to God, I will tell the dear people of Iran that veterans and various forces - Sunnis Shias and Kurds all over Iraq - are ready for sacrifice." Iraqi troops are holding off Sunni fighters outside Samarra north of Baghdad, site of one of the main Shi'ite shrines. The fighters have vowed to carry their offensive south to Najaf and Kerbala, seats of Shi'ite Islam since the Middle Ages. Saudi Arabia, the region's main Sunni power, said Iraq was hurtling towards civil war. Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, in words clearly aimed at Iran and at Baghdad's Shi'ite rulers, deplored the prospect of "foreign intervention" and said governments need to meet "legitimate demands of the people". Maliki's government has accused Saudi Arabia of promoting "genocide" by backing Sunni militants. Riyadh supports Sunni fighters in Syria but denies aiding ISIL. The Baiji refinery is the fighters' immediate goal, the biggest source of fuel for domestic consumption in Iraq, which would give them a firm grip on energy supply in the north where the local population has complained of fuel shortages. The refinery was shut on Tuesday and foreign workers flown out by helicopter.

"The militants have managed to break in to the refinery. Now they are in control of the production units, administration building and four watch towers. This is 75 percent of the refinery," an official speaking from inside the refinery said. The government denied the refinery had fallen. Counter-terrorism spokesman, Sabah Nouri, insisted forces were still in control and had killed 50 to 60 fighters and burned 6 or 7 insurgent vehicles after being attacked from three directions.

FROSTY MEETING Last week's sudden advance by ISIL - a group that declares all Shi'ites to be heretics deserving death and has proudly distributed footage of its fighters gunning down prisoners lying prone in mass graves - is a test for U.S. President Barack Obama, who pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011. Obama has ruled out sending back ground troops but is considering other military options to help defend Baghdad, and U.S. officials have even spoken of cooperating with Tehran against the mutual foe. But U.S. and other international officials insist Maliki must do more to address the widespread sense of political exclusion among Sunnis, the minority that ran Iraq until U.S. troops deposed dictator Saddam Hussein after the 2003 invasion. Western countries fear an ISIL-controlled mini-state in Syria and Iraq could become a haven for militants who could then stage attacks around the globe. British prime minister David Cameron told parliament he disagreed "with those people who think this is nothing to do with us and if they want to have some sort of extreme Islamist regime in the middle of Iraq it won't affect us. It will. "The people in that regime, as well as trying to take territory, are also planning to attack us at home in the United Kingdom," Cameron said. In a rerun of previous failed efforts at bridging sectarian and ethnic divisions, Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders met late Tuesday behind closed doors. They later stood frostily before cameras as Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shi'ite politician who held the post of prime minister before Maliki, read a statement.

"No terrorist powers represent any sect or religion," Jaafari said in the address, which included a broad promise of "reviewing the previous course" of Iraqi politics. Afterwards, most of the leaders, including Maliki and Usama al-Nujaifi, the leading Sunni present, walked away from each other in silence.

Though the joint statement said only those directly employed by the Iraqi state should bear arms, thousands of Shi'ite militiamen have been mobilised to defend Baghdad. According to one Shi'ite Islamist working in the government, well-trained organisations Asaib Ahl Haq, Khataeb Hezbollah and the Badr Organisation are now being deployed alongside Iraqi military units as the main combat force. With battles now raging just an hour's drive north of the capital, Baghdad is on edge. The city of 7 million people saw fierce sectarian street fighting from 2006-1007 and is still divided into Sunni and Shi'ite districts, some protected by razor wire and concrete blast walls. India said it was worried about 40 Indian construction workers missing in territory seized by ISIL. (Reporting By Ghazwan Hassan, Ahmed Rasheed, Ned Parker; Editing by Giles Elgood) ========= فرصة لا ندري ان كانت ستتكرر في حياتنا يارب اشهد ان قلوبنا معهم Q/ What is the status of he who is killed in the Jihad against ‪#‎ISIS‬ and what are the required consequences? A/ He is a martyr. If the Muslims reached him while he's dead, then there's no necessity for making him ghusl nor Takfeen and he is to be buried with his own clothes. If they caught him while still breathing, then they have to make him ghusl. ================================= Judge who sentenced Saddam Hussein to death 'is captured and executed by ISIS' Raouf Abdul Rahman sentenced the dictator to death by hanging in 2006 He was reportedly captured and killed by militants last week Iraqi government is yet to confirm his death, but have not denied his capture Judge thought to have been killed in retaliation for death of Saddam Hussein By Lucy Crossley Published: 22:32 GMT, 22 June 2014 | Updated: 14:04 GMT, 23 June 2014 12,863 shares 115 View comments The judge who sentenced former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to death has been captured and executed by ISIS militants, it is claimed. Raouf Abdul Rahman, who sentenced the dictator to death by hanging in 2006, was reportedly killed by rebels in retaliation for the execution of the 69-year-old. His death has not been confirmed by the Iraqi government, but officials had not denied reports of his capture last week. Judge: Raouf Abdul Rahman who sentenced former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to death has reportedly been captured and executed by ISIS militants +3 Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein sits as his charges were read by the Judge Rahman +3 Judge: Raouf Abdul Rahman (left) who sentenced former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (right) to death has reportedly been captured and executed by ISIS militants He is believed to have been arrested on June 16, and died two days later. Jordanian MP Khalil Attieh wrote on his Facebook page that Judge Rahman, who had headed the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal during Saddam's trial, had been arrested and sentenced to death. 'Iraqi revolutionaries arrested him and sentenced him to death in retaliation for the death of the martyr Saddam Hussein,' he said, according to Al-Mesyroon. Attieh also said that Judge Rahman had unsuccessfully attempted to escape from Baghdad disguised in a dancer's costume. More... Four key Iraqi towns fall to ISIS militants backed by Sunni Muslim fighters as country teeters on brink of sectarian conflict 'Send your own children first': Message from distraught father of British-born ISIS fighters to the UK extremists who brainwashed his sons A lethal new class of British jihadi: Second fanatic in ISIS recruitment video went to same Cardiff college as the first and once dreamed of becoming prime minister. Now he says: 'Muslims who don't join us will die a painful death' The Facebook page for Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam's former deputy who has emerged as a key figure among the Sunni militants, also posted that the rebels had been able to arrest Judge Rahman. Judge Rahmann, who was born in the Kurdish town of Halabja, took over midway through the trial in January 2006 after previous judge Rizgar Amin was criticised for being too lenient in his dealings with Hussein and his co-defendants. The father of three had graduated from Baghdad University's law school in 1963 and worked as a lawyer before he was appointed as the chief judge of the Kurdistan Appeals Court in 1996. On trial: The former Iraqi president gives his account to Judge Rahman during his trial in 2006 +3 On trial: The former Iraqi president gives his account to Judge Rahman during his trial in 2006 He oversaw Saddam's trial for crimes against humanity over the killing of 148 people in the town of Dujail following an assassination attempt in 1982, and sentenced him to death by hanging following the guilty verdict. Judge Rahman had faced claims that he was biased as his home town had been the subject of a poison gas attack in 1988, allegedly ordered by Hussein. A number of Judge Rahman's relatives were among the 5,000 people killed in the attack, and during the 1980s he was also reportedly detained and tortured by Saddam's security agents. The judge later criticised the way the execution was carried out in December 2006, saying in 2008 that it should not have been carried out in public and branding it 'uncivilised and backward'. The hanging had taken place as Sunni Muslims were celebrating the religious festival Eid al-Adha, and a video of the execution showed the former leader being taunted by members of the Shi'ite group. In March 2007 it was reported that Judge Rahman had applied for asylum in Britain after travelling to the UK with his family on a tourist visa, claiming he feared for his life. He never commented on the claims, which were denied by the Iraqi High Criminal Court Tribunal which said he had merely been in the UK for a holiday. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665360/Judge-sentenced-Saddam-Hussein-death-captured-executed-ISIS.html#ixzz35Z4XCEEG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook ===================