I shall write soon about the 5th Anniversary but I wanted to postpone that until the 9th of April, in the meantime I'll review this book since I just finished it.
Like me, Nakash is a non-Shi’i (Iraqi Jew) who seems to have developed a fascination with Shi’ism, he’s written a number of books on the subject, including the solid The Conversion of Iraq’s Tribes to Shiism, a book I found thoroughly researched, sourced and balanced, which led me to pick up this book, making it the second Naqash book I read.
The book is essentially a very informative country-by-country overview of Shia conditions beginning from the nation-state period in the Arab world, it outlines in painstaking detail the relationship between the state and Shi’i community in four gruesome chapters, beginning by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, briefly touching on Kuwait [which it praises as the most Shia-tolerant], then jumping headlong into the informative Iraq and Lebanon chapters, before finishing with a brief opinion-recommendation.
One of the more fascinating aspects of this book is the illuminative insight it provides in the role different sects played in shaping current nation-states, before reading this book, I voiced the opinion on this blog or some other blogs that the clash between the Ba’ath and the Shia in the 1980s was in essence a clash between the tyrannical secular state and Pan-[Shi’i] Islamic theocracy, with the Sunni-Shia dimension being only secondary in the conflict. I can tell you now that this view is bullshit, the only definitive fixture in the struggle in Iraq is the Sunni-Shi’i dimension, but it often hides behind other ideologies, for example, while the Sunni ruling elite espoused Pan-Arabism, the Shia by and large were more than fearful of compromising their majority-status in Iraq by joining a Pan-Arab domain in which they will be marginalized as a minority, hence their own choice to embrace a modern ideology was the Communist Party, which I believe has less to do with any appeal of Marxism in the Shia community than it being the only modern ideology (as were the trends of times) strong enough to repel Pan-Arabism at the time ; thus, you can understand the amount of reverence the Shi’i community hold for Abdilkarim Qassim (the face-on-the-moon hoax was actually invented by Thawra (Sadr City now) residents after he was executed), the minority-status of the Sunnis compelled them to stress their Pan-Arab ideology so as to embrace their co-religionists and balance their number, often harping on the cultural ties of Shia with Persia, while the Shia preferred an isolationist policy that maintained their advantage and emphasized general Arab and Tribal values, which was what the Communists preached.
Ironically, the very same Pan-Arabism the Shia of Iraq found unappealing was doted upon by their Saudi co religionists, who sought to counterbalance the ideology of the Saudi state’s Pro-US Pan-Islamism (yeah) which had a strong adversary in Nasser’s Pan-Arabism at the time, basically, the Saudi Shi’is embraced any ideology that promises reform and change, here we see that the choice of ideologies in the Middle East was inspired not by the actual principles of said ideologies but the degree of adaptability they offer to persist the rights of respective communities.
Even more interesting is that while the notion in Pan-Arab Iraq was that the Shia are the separatist traitors, in Lebanon, the Sunnis were the ones labeled traitors to Lebanon because Lebanon was the isolationist country the Shias of Iraq desired ; the Christian-minority Maronites went out of their way to forge Lebanon against the demands of Sunnis to unite it with Syria, they designed Lebanon as a Phoenician non-Arab oasis of the oppressed in the sea of Islam, in fact, there are several eye-opening accounts of several botched president Bshara al-Khori projects, including siding up completely with Israel and resettling all the Shia of Jabal Amil in Iraq in order to increase the numbers of Christians.
The book is largely concerned with the modern politics, it doesn't explain for example why the Shia feel so estranged from the Sunnis when they're both Arabs, History-wise, it's informative and recommended, if anything, the reference index is a treasure trove of Arab-only books on the subject. Where it falls short is when Naqqash advocates his upbeat and optimistic opinion, Naqqash views the ascendancy of Shia as a potential reform palette in the Middle East, reading this book, sometimes you might be persuaded to think of Muqtada as a sharp, intelligent grand strategist, not a confused Nasrallah-wannabe with bad oral hygiene, Naqqash says that Shias have moved from confrontation to accommodation regarding the West, he adds that the only reason theocracy rose in full force is because of the lack of a civil alternative, and he doesn’t invest much in Iran or the idea of its possible dominance through the guise of Pan-Shi’ism, instead describing it as a country very persuaded by democracy and civil rights, he mentions the possibility of Iraqi civil war in a single line amidst his love-fest, of course, this book was written in 2005, so he might be excused a little in that regard. Personally, while I do believe that it is absolutely necessary for any meaningful democracy of any sort to emerge out of the Middle East that the oppressed sects get their say, I don’t see Shias as any better than Sunnis in the field of understanding the grasp of pluralism and multiculturalism, they can be just as barbaric, backward and resilient, if not more due to their history of oppression which forced them to go inward, if Shi’is were the majority and Sunnis were the minority, the results would be quite similar, as long as sentiments in the Middle East adopt a method of discourse that consists of dominating everything at all costs, then it’s hopeless.
The only way Shiism could stand a chance at being a platform for accommodation is the same reason why the Shia Ismaili Fatimid state in Egypt [which ruled a Sunni population] exhibited a larger degree of religious tolerance in its times, that is, self-conscious recognition of their own status as a minority, which prompts them to encourage freedom and liberty as necessary for their survival, in this case too, it is a fake democracy aimed only at escaping persecution and not genuine belief in equality and modern citizenship values.
33 comments:
We do not need to accommodate the Sunnis in the land of the Imams. I think Jordan is a great place for you guys.
Interesting that Kuwait is more Shia-friendly than Bahrain.
Abbas: "before reading this book, I voiced the opinion on this blog or some other blogs that the clash between the Ba’ath and the Shia in the 1980s was in essence a clash between the tyrannical secular state and Pan-[Shi’i] Islamic theocracy, with the Sunni-Shia dimension being only secondary in the conflict. I can tell you now that this view is bullshit, the only definitive fixture in the struggle in Iraq is the Sunni-Shi’i dimension, but it often hides behind other ideologies, for example,..."
Does this mean you are beginning to agree with Mojo, that sectarianism existed in Iraq prior to '03?
I'm skeptical of the claim that Sunnis in Iraq were all "pan-Arabists" and Shi'ites were all "Marxists." I can see how "Arabism" would find a more sympathetic audience among Sunnis and Marxism would have a more sympathetic audience among Shi'ites, but a great deal of Shi'ites were Arabists as well. Most of the participants in the Ba'thist coups in the 1960's were Shi'ites after all. I also don't understand how you would associate Marxism with tribalism; Marxism is absolutely hostile to traditional values including nationalism, tribes, and kinship.
Nakkash knows a lot, and his book on the conversion of Iraqi tribes to Shi'ism is excellent, but he was after all a cheerleader for the invasion, which was premised on the notion that Sunnis were evil and Shi'ites were good. Another role he took in the debate was to calm American fears that Iraq's Shi'ites would align themselves with Iran by arguing that Iraqi Shi'ites were more "nationalist" than religious. I think we all know how that turned out.
I think what people don't often take into account when studying the history of a Middle Eastern society like Iraq is that most people in these countries are *very young*. You absolutely cannot make judgments about how Iraqis think of sects, religion, nationalism, etc. based on evidence from one or two generations ago. Most Iraqis -- especially Shi'ites -- have no real memory of what it meant to be Sunni or Shi'ite in Iraq 50 years ago and are indoctrinated into religion to a much greater extent than previous generations probably were, and were probably taught to be much more conscious of their sect than previous generations were.
While I take issue with your simplistic characterization of Fatimid rule, the idea that minorities would promote liberal values for their own self-interest is not surpising or unusual, and it doesn't make it "fake." The problem with the Shi'ites is that they don't seek secularism at all even when they are minorities, but rather seek the official establishment of their own religion, which is necessarily hostile to the "Nawasib" (i.e. Sunnis) as you explained in your "kitabat" piece, and as the first comment on this post illustrates.
anon1,
my point exactly: the shia are just as awful as the sunnis but they are temporarily siding up with liberal values in order to advance their own theocratic claims. This is why I said that this book is important for the history it offers but the short opinion in the end could be done without.
I didn't associated Marxism with Tribalism, while Nakkash doesn't touch this subject, it seems to me that the Iraqi Shia community at large chose communism because it was the only force powerful enough to stand a chance at Pan-Arabism, not because of any Marxist leanings on their part (though the socialism factor could be attractive - but the Ba'ath Party itself was theoretically Ishtiraki)
The rise of a Shia theocracy is indeed bad for all involved, but the Shia doctrine itself discourages direct conflict : consider the "suspension" Shias must uphold until Mahdi re-emerges. Of course, This has been recently challenged by Khomeini's Wilayat-Faqih and Muqtada's Mumahidoon (which is probably the same thing) movements, both advocating direct Shi'i action ; so this theory might not be as effective as it is theoretically.
And yes, I am still of the opinion that Shi'is are unable to organize themselves in a meaningful way that can challenge the dominance of their pope/clergy [except maybe Iranians, who - as we're told repeatedly - are "freedom-loving people", but what do we know?]
Abbas, do you like Sufis? I do. The Sufi tradition represents a larger percentage of Shia than of Sunni.
Abbas, you are a serious thinker who searches for the truth. This is your strenght.
I have so many problems with what was just in this summary, I don't know if it's worth it to go into it or not.
I think sometimes people in the mena region tend to look at the neocons as swayed by a certain segment of the middle east, but I think what they say in this case should be taken as mere rhetoric. The basis of the neocon dream-as dreamed up by Wolfowitz et al, was based on a very abstract theory-not on empowering certain people. That if they knock down one government and install the kind of government we want it would create this domino effect and everyone else in the middle east would follow suit and everyone would be happy-this is what they thought. All the rhetoric about other things should be seen as being used as a means to get there, not the actual goal. I'd also add that Israeli government right now is totally horrified about what's happening in Iraq now, if for no other reason because a destabilized region is really not good for them.
...I know no one brought up the conspiracy theories but I was anticipating somebody going there.
also i think this is a really important point
I think what people don't often take into account when studying the history of a Middle Eastern society like Iraq is that most people in these countries are *very young*. You absolutely cannot make judgments about how Iraqis think of sects, religion, nationalism, etc. based on evidence from one or two generations ago. Most Iraqis -- especially Shi'ites -- have no real memory of what it meant to be Sunni or Shi'ite in Iraq 50 years ago and are indoctrinated into religion to a much greater extent than previous generations probably were, and were probably taught to be much more conscious of their sect than previous generations were.
actually i feel this way about lebanon as well-its political situation often gets read the same way for 40 years and doesn't take into account how the politics has shifted in the last generation but i digress(also christ if you want to talk about sectarian societies...)
I totally forgot I came here to post this link
http://www.historiae.org/
I think you might find this guy's papers interesting.
very good comments by anon1!
I hope konfused kid continues in this same vein instead of posting nullities.
@ anon2,
please explain what those nullities, I wouldn't give a shit normally but it's always good to hear feedback.
Would people agree that broadly across the Middle East (but not in Iran), the Sunnis tend to be the ruling class and the Shias the working class. In other words, the change in Iraq since the US invasion is as much as class revolution as a religious one.
I think Don Cox has a point. It may appear to be a religious conflict based on the Sunni/Shia schism, but perhaps that merely masks a typical class struggle between the haves and the have nots in Iraq. A more equitable distribution of wealth may go farther in ameliorating this then you might realize.
*sigh* I haven't even got to "The Shia Revival" yet.
according don cocks,
the american occupation led by oil cartels, the reactionary republicans, is
"In other words, the change in Iraq since the US invasion is as much as class revolution as a religious one."
you people are not only ignorant, you also fucking stupid.
@Lynnette
"It may appear to be a religious conflict based on the Sunni/Shia schism, but perhaps that merely masks a typical class struggle between the haves and the have nots in Iraq."
I don't think so. Partly from reading the posts on this very blog and partly from other news reportings I believe that there really is a sunni/shia shism today, and to some extent always were. The sects are actually quite far apart theologically and there has always been hostility between them. This hostility was to some extent surpressed under Saddam and the relatively secular society Iraq then had (at least until his latter years). But the shism has been greatly enhanced after the invasion, a result of the actions of several actors I would say.
A "typical class struggle", if you look for one, would rather be the struggle between the Sadrists with a huge backing among the poor and disenfranchised Shiia and the SIIC/Badrists with a backing from the Shiia merchant class. That's also a conflict yet to be resolved.
"A more equitable distribution of wealth may go farther in ameliorating this then you might realize."
Please Lynnette, you start to sound like, shock - horror, a socialist!
Marcus,
lol! A socialist? Me? I am, and always will be a centrist or moderate if you will. I believe in capitalism, sure, but I also believe in social safety nets as well. It is finding the right balance that is difficult in any society.
I am not downplaying the religious differences in Iraq. I understand that Abbas has been trying to point them out for quite some time now. It is just that I think when you have a large imbalance in wealth distribution you will exacerbate those kinds of differences. We have many different kinds of religion here in the States. And certainly there can be friction at times. But if people feel they are treated fairly and have the same opportunities to advance in their careers and to simply enjoy life, those differences start to become not so important.
I know, I know, they all think we are totally clueless. Which is strange because they keep pointing out our prejudices to us. Don't they think we haven't tried to work through those issues? What do they think that speech by Obama's pastor was all about? Or Obama's speech addressing those issues?
Iraq at this time is a country of extremes. If they don't start finding a moderate or centrist way of doing things, then yes, they will continue to wallow in the chaos they have now.
Abbas,
in this case too, it is a fake democracy aimed only at escaping persecution
Religious persectution based on the Sunni/Shia schism?
lol! You do realize that we have switched roles, Abbas? You are arguing here that Saddam marginalized the Shia because they were Shia, and I am arguing that it was based on greed and lust for power. Maybe we are both a little right, no? :)
Oh, and actually, the book you reviewed here is the one I have waiting to be read. Obviously I have too many, or I wouldn't be getting my titles mixed up. :)
A socialist? Me? I am, and always will be a centrist or moderate if you will.
centrists and moderates are not antithetical to socialism. in fact many socialist thru out time are considered centrists.
"It may appear to be a religious conflict based on the Sunni/Shia schism, but perhaps that merely masks a typical class struggle between the haves and the have nots in Iraq."
typical class struggle? hmm, interesting. do you think the class struggle has to do w/the nationalist vs federalist aspect of internal struggle. because what i notice is that the groups w/the national desires for a unified iraq are the ones targeted by both the invader and the ones who stay in power thru the benefit of their support.
Abbas,
Does the author assert that the Fatimid caliphate was religiously tolerant, or is that your own view? My past reading indicated that it was the least tolerant Arab or Muslim dynasty, at least toward Christians and Jews, of all such dynasties, up to the late 19th century. Perhaps you were referring to Fatimid tolerance of Sunnis (which is understandable since the vast majority of the population remained Sunni, even if they took on some Shi'a trappings), rather than general religious tolerance. The "Mad Caliph" al-Hakim apparently persecuted both Christians and Jews.
Whoops, one more comment, after looking at your few preceding posts. You said most Syrian Christians were probably Assyrians, which may be true in the far northeast of the country, but I believe they're far outnumbered in Syria as a whole by Armenians (Apostolic, Catholic, and Protestant), Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, and probably a number of smaller sects.
Jon,
I don't know a lot about the Fatimids, but I really would like to read about them, their rise and how Saladdin managed to eradicate their legacy from a professional source, I got the impression that they were tolerant from the Wikipedia Fatimid article, the line is sourced.
I've also read somewhere that there are a lot of Assyrians in Syria. I don't know about Arman, but it Araman in general hailed from Armenia after the Ottoman massacre and so I doubt that their number is greater than the Assyrians, who have lived there in the first place.
I don't have any numbers on this, but there are definitely Armenian communities that have been in Syria and Iraq for well over a thousand years.
Actually I'm curious about the religious makeup of Syria in general, but I don't think I've ever seen a census.
Jon,
The Fatimids were one of the most tolerant of all medieval Muslim dynasties towards Christians and Jews. They even appointed non-Muslim provincial governors, which was extremely rare in other dynasties. In fact, there was a great deal of demagoguery aimed at them at the time for "favoring" non-Muslims over Muslims. The reason they have a reputation for intolerence is owed soley to one single ruler, Al-Hakim, who was mentally unstable and pretty much persecuted everyone. He was apparently assasinated by his own sister. He destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulture, but it was immediately rebuilt by his successor.
Annie,
do you think the class struggle has to do w/the nationalist vs federalist aspect of internal struggle.
No. I am referring purely to income level and opportunities for higher education. You will find nationalists among both Sadrists and Sunni insurgents.
You had people in Iraq living in extreme poverty while others lived lavishly. People living in the south and in Sadr City, for example, seemed to be merely existing while their fellow Iraqis were driving BMW's. There seemed a deliberate effort by Saddam to use the people of Iraq's suffering to force the lifting of sanctions, even while he lived quite well. Do you not think that people would resent this?
lyn, of course people resent being denied opportunity.
You will find nationalists among both Sadrists and Sunni insurgents.
correct. i mentioned this because wrt "referring purely to income level and opportunities for higher education" , the 'socialist' tendencies do not seem to be divided for the most part between sect, or classes, or income levels. the divisions seem to be divided by either nationalist or federalist leanings.
i say 'seem' because i am not an expert on this topic, at all.
one could view the current shia vs shia conflicts arising right now in basra over control of oil distribution as an indicator of this. do you see this as a 'class' struggle, a struggle between more socialist vs none wrt resources, or not related to the topic?
wrt what we refer to as 'free' trade (which usually isn't free at all) vs socialist (complete w/caveats), although one could argue the 'opportunity' for equality supposedly exists, that often doesn't translate into equitable distribution of opportunity.
anyway, if what you say is true and it was a 'class struggle', then recent attempts at recent reconcilliations should be heralded. instead it seems as we are on the precipice of what could be a devastating showdown of shia vs shia. do you think perhaps that is divided by class within the sect?
annie
lyn,
You will find nationalists among both Sadrists and Sunni insurgents.
You will find nationalists among both Sadrists and Sunnis. i should have picked that up the first time.
annie
Annie,
one could view the current shia vs shia conflicts arising right now in basra over control of oil distribution as an indicator of this. do you see this as a 'class' struggle,
I think the difficulty in trying to analyze what is happening in Iraq is that there are so many factors involved that intertwine. I am no expert, but this is my take so far on the Basra region. In that region you have the rising of Iranian influenced religious fervor that is not supported by the entire populace. You also have a criminal element that seems to be entrenched in the area (oil smugglers for example). In the sense that the poverty and lack of opportunities may have led people into criminal activity, that could perhaps be considered a "class" struggle. Take away the poverty and provide good jobs and education for the people and you may be able to remove the crime. But you also have the religious struggle between the moderates and the fundamentalists. Then on top of all of this is this ingrained idea in the Middle East that the only way to get any piece of the pie is through your own "strongman", which would encourage a violent approach to resolving differences. With the Shia on Shia violence it seems to be a combination of all of these factors. You may look on it as a struggle between the "collaborators" and the "nationalists", but I think even if you take away the United States/British involvement you will still have these factors playing out.
...that often doesn't translate into equitable distribution of opportunity.
I don't think there is any perfect system. Which is why I tend to lean to the center in most things. Pure socialism is a nice ideal, but you also need the competitive incentive of capitalism to spark innovation in industry and encourage job creation etc.
...do you think perhaps that is divided by class within the sect?
See my answer above to the Basra question.
Now, if any Iraqis come along and read that comment they can go ahead and tell me what an idiot I am and that I understand nothing. If so, please be detailed in your correction as I would like to see where I have been in error.
Abbas, I loved the review, quite informative, but I can say it is quite of an off side version than his earlier book "Shi'is of Iraq".
I am gona definitely get that book from the shelves.
And I totally agree with you, just as much as i feel alienated from the Shi'a political discource so do I feel the same Sunni wise,they zerox one thing in common -- non tolerance, and coin their own relgious history.
thanx a million for the review :)
Then on top of all of this is this ingrained idea in the Middle East that the only way to get any piece of the pie is through your own "strongman", which would encourage a violent approach to resolving differences.
earth to lyn, this isn't limited to the middle east. we've got cheney who's quite proficient in arm twisting and violent approachs to resolving differences. it just so happens we have empowered strong man after strong man in the middle east and elsewhere, did it ever occur to you without this support they may not be in power? (that goes for kenya too, the list is endless, consider south america..we keep backing 'strongmen' on countries and the people resent america for it)
annie
abbas, i have to agree it is an excellent review. i have read it 4 times now and get more from it everytime. still, there is so much about the culture that is hard for me to comprehend. perhaps i am simply unaccustomed to understanding the depths of the conditioning from articulation of differences from so many centuries of interacting w/eachother.
you might be persuaded to think of Muqtada as a sharp, intelligent grand strategist, not a confused Nasrallah-wannabe with bad oral hygiene
lol, you write so well, interjecting these amusing passages.
Naqqash says that Shias have moved from confrontation to accommodation regarding the West, he adds that the only reason theocracy rose in full force is because of the lack of a civil alternative
makes sense to me. where there's a vacum, opportunity knocks.
annie
15.07.24daigege
gucci
cheap ray ban sunglasses
oakley store
ray bans
cheap jordans
gucci outlet
michael kors handbag
kate spade handbags
chanel bags
michael kors
oakley sunglasses discount
mcm outlet
coach outlet store online
tory burch outlet online
oakley sunglasses
ray ban uk
pandora outlet
air max shoes
replica watches
cheap ray ban sunglasses
pandora charms 2015
abercrombie
fitflops sale clearance
fitflops outlet
jordan homme
michael kors outlet
chanel outlet
nike blazer
jordan pas cher
michael kors
ed hardy clothing
ray ban sunglasses
christian louboutin outlet
kate spade outlet
soccer shoes
true religion outlet
longchamp pas cher
kate spade uk
replica watches cheap
oakley online
2015-11-4leilei
michael kors outlet
air max 90
sac longchamp pliage
michael kors outlet online
montblanc pens
true religion jeans
nike air max 95
nike uk
jordan pas cher
cheap jordans
longchamp outlet
jordan 3 white cenment
ugg boots outlet
coach factory outlet online
canada gooses
air jordan femme
adidas gazelle
coach outlet online
ghd straighteners
coach factory outlet
michael kors
hermes outlet
nike tn pas cher
coach outlet online
true religion
christian louboutin shoes
kate spade outlet
nike store uk
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors bags
michael kors uk
cheap basketball shoes
nike blazers shoes
nike running shoes
java ui online training is the best training
Java UI Online Training
Post a Comment