|
Shia history in Iraq;
Let us not repeat our past mistakes
The history of
the Shi’ites in Iraq dates back to over 1300 years when the fourth
successor to the prophet of Islam, Imam Ali moved there, making the
city of Kufa his capital from which 50 of today’s nations were
governed. Since Imam Ali was considered by Shi’ites to be the first
rightful successor to the prophet, many of his followers also moved
with him, making Kufa the hometown of over 2 million Shi’ites. Imam
Ali who was later assassinated in Kufa was buried in the near-by
city of Najaf. His shrine is now one of Shia Islam’s most sacred
places.
Iraq
later became the resting place for 4 other top Shia leaders of Imam
Ali’s descent whose shrines are scattered all over
Iraq. To this end, Iraq has a
significance that outweighs all other countries in the Shia school
of thought, which is why from the very beginnings it had a
population dominated by Shi’ites, while also accommodating followers
of other denominations.
Mongol
rule began with a brutal conquest in the 13th century, but gave way
to the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. The Ottoman Turks treated
Iraq as a Sunni entity despite the fact that it was a predominantly
Shi’ite nation, Their ill treatment of the majority made the Ottoman
reign not a very pleasant one due to the dissatisfaction of the
Shi’ites. Iraq’s majority Shi’ites view this segment in their
history as a bitter one because they were treated as second class
citizens deprived of their right to practice their faith freely.
"
Successive governments ruled Iraq since then, but the formula
has stayed the same; minority Sunnis ruling the Majority
Shi’ites in a state of utter despotism. This consistent trend
paved the way for the rise of Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti.
" |
The uneasy
situation continued until the British forces came to Iraq who were
received as liberators from the oppressive Ottoman rule. After
initially welcoming British forces to Baghdad, Iraqis soon realized
they had traded one occupier for another. Resistance to the British
rule began in the 1920’s and the people of
Iraq
began to demand independence from Britain. After World War I,
Britain was given a League of Nations mandate to carve up Ottoman
territory and grant independence to Iraq which was made up of three
regions; the north, the center, and the south. The British, however,
were faced by the key problem of defining the exact shape of the new
Iraqi nation, which included 20 percent Kurds in the north and 65
percent Shiite Muslims in the south. Both were ruled by a minority
Sunni upper class in the central part of the country who were also
living among Shia neighbors.
The anti-British
revolt in 1920 was put down and a puppet monarch, King Faisal I was
installed. Thus the fatal mistake of allowing the minority to rule a
dissatisfied majority was committed. King Faisal who was nothing
more than a polished Sunni Arab officer was treated suspiciously by
Kurds and Shiites alike. This situation was the perfect recipe for
civil unrest, and by the time a revolution toppled the monarchy in
1958, it paved the way for at least nine Shiite revolts and several
pogroms. The Shi’ites clearly had had enough of Sunni rule and
wanted to have a say in their own government.
The suffering of
the Shi’ites had only begun. A Sunni government meant that Sunnis
who saw themselves isolated and deprived of the support of the
majority had to shield themselves behind gun turrets, their vast
intelligence network and torture apparatus. This was the only means
of preserving their grip on power, thus creating an atmosphere of
mutual hatred intensified by the military approach of the government
where there are no channels of communication between state and
people.
Successive
governments ruled
Iraq
since then, but the formula has stayed the same; minority Sunnis
ruling the Majority Shi’ites in a state of utter despotism. This
consistent trend paved the way for the rise of Saddam Hussein Al
Tikriti.
The Ba’ath party
only exacerbated the situation. Shi’ites were starting to consider
their old times of oppression incomparable to their present state
where they had become “afraid not to be afraid” of Saddam’s sheer
love for bloodshed. Suddenly the Ottomans, the Mongols and the other
oppressive rulers were being seen as angels of mercy in contrast
with Saddam’s reign of terror. There was almost no hope in sight to
end their thousand year suffering.
Saddam’s sectarian
bias was apparent not only in the “ethnic cleansing” of the
Shi’ites, but also in his support for groups that saw Shi’ites (and
generally anyone not following their extremist beliefs) as infidels
who had to be exterminated. These groups included Wahhabis (the
radical Sunni sect to whom Osama Bin Laden is a subscriber).
Wahhabis had received the green light to operate within Iraq and
even in such Shi’ite strongholds such as Karbala and Najaf by means
of setting up offices and publishing books. All of this was being
done at a time when a simple newsletter published by Shi’ites was a
crime punishable by death. Saddam’s support for Wahhabis also helped
the emergence of people such as Sheikh Ahamd Al Kubaisy who was also
funded by elements in the Gulf region. Sheikh Al Kubaisy openly
attacked Iraqi opposition groups and was a known supporter for
Saddam’s regime. Ironically, however, Sheikh Al Kubaisy has now
emerged as an opposition figure in order to take advantage of the
situation, possibly relying on the historical trend of handing the
government over to the minority Sunnis despite his radical views and
Wahhabi tendencies.
This time around,
however, we must not repeat the old mistake commited by the British.
Doing so will without a doubt create a very difficult situation for
the coalition forces and place them at opposite ends with the
Majority Shi’ites. Avoiding that mistake can only be achieved by
changing the formula. The majority Shi’ite must be given their full
rights beginning with the right of recognition as a majority with
its respective power of representation at any future government.
If there are
certain neighboring countries rejecting such a proposal and calling
for yet another Sunni takeover in Iraq, it must be understood that
such demands are certainly not taking the interest of the United
States into consideration. Such calls will only lead to placing the
coalition forces at a confrontational position with the majority
Shi’ites, thus transforming them into invaders rather than
liberators. This can almost certainly cause not only Iraq but also
the entire region to be destabilized.
We
must understand that there is an historic golden chance to establish
a base for cooperation between the East and the West by creating a
modern Iraqi government which acts as a model state which bridges
the gap between civilizations and serves the interest of all parties
under a just democratic system. A system where the majority get
their lawful rights while minorities are guaranteed proper
representation as well, because this is the only way we will have
fulfilled our promise of bringing peace and justice to the people of
Iraq.
Sayed Mahdi Almodarresi
29/04/2003
|
