On equality
Sayyid Ali Al-Ridha* argues that this month's Shi'a conference in Tehran should not be seen as a sectarian attempt to usurp the rights of Iraq's minorities
As with the Ottomans before them, segments of the political and intellectual elite of the Arab world today are striving hard to ensure that their fellow Arab Shi'ite Muslims remain conveniently excluded from the corridors of power in Baghdad. This month's historic Shi'a conference, held in Tehran, aroused many a passion. Those who spoke out against the "disturbing behaviour" of the Shi'ites of Iraq have remained true to the "wisdom" of their narrow-minded sectarianism.
The Shi'a conference was an attempt to ensure the rights of Iraq's religious minorities. As such, the conference was inclusive, representing Iraqi Shi'ites from all walks of life and religious inclinations. Among the diverse group of those present was the distinguished secular democrat Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), outspoken Iraqi liberal professor Kanan Makiya and the respected Ayatollah Mohamed Baqir Al- Hakim, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The delegates, over 250 in all, were assembled to discuss the immediate concerns and interests of the religious majority of Iraq, namely the Shi'ites.
Critics of the conference conveniently prefaced their accusations with a token expression of sympathy towards the plight of the oppressed Arab Shi'ites of Iraq. None dared to deny the indisputable fact that the Shi'ites of Iraq have been wronged, brutally oppressed and deceitfully denied their rightful role in politics and government, yet all proposed measures bordering on inaction.
It is interesting to note that none of the critics discussed the proceedings or details of the conference. Apparently it is more convenient to label the effort as sectarian without illustrating exactly why such a conclusion was reached. Those who opposed this historic meeting argue on several intellectually and politically bankrupt fronts. The first and foremost argument against such a gathering is that it seeks to divide rather than unite the besieged people of Iraq. Such an accusation is typical of paranoid and suspicious minds, for it fails to comprehend the basic fact that the Shi'ites are a distinct entity within the larger Islamic community, or umma.
As such, if the Shi'ites choose to discuss issues and concerns among themselves it should not be a cause of concern. After all, numerous other Islamic communities assemble periodically throughout the Islamic world. Based on this logic, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) should view the Arab League as an instrument of division and one that represents Arab ethnocentricity rather than the genuine Arab desire to contribute positively. Further, the Arab League should in turn view the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as an instrument of division, when it comes to the cause of Arab solidarity and political unity. According to this logic, the Arab League should have non-Arab states as members and the Gulf Cooperation Council should include representation from non- Gulf Arab states.
Unfortunately, the critics of the Shi'a conference do not genuinely attempt to understand the need, membership and content of the conference, and argue that the Shi'ites must not meet exclusively. The issue here is larger than just the notion of a Shi'a conference. In fact, the issue is the very existence of the Shi'ites. Historically, the Sunnis have perceived the Shi'ites as those who challenged the political unity of Islam and therefore caused an irreparable division. Instead of attempting to engage the Shi'ites and include them in the political arena, Sunnis labelled them as blasphemers and apostates, pursuing policies of rule by oppression and exclusion.
It was almost as if there was a deep-rooted fear of the Shi'ites among the Sunnis. Instead of overcoming this fear, Sunnis chose to nurture it further by distancing themselves from and excluding the Shi'ites.
In a classic textbook example of sectarianism, Abbassid kings brought in Seljuk Turks to serve them and oppress the Arab Shi'ite people. History is a witness to the subsequent decline of Arab power after the widening of this sectarian rift, in which one section of the Arab world chose to share power with foreign, non-Arab people rather than their fellow Shi'ite Arabs. The resulting instability brought a premature end to the blossoming Arab empire, and marked the passing of the Islamic torch to non-Arab peoples.
It comes as no surprise that those who opposed the Shi'a conference also express the belief that there can either be a "just ruler" or a "Shi'ite ruler", clearly implying that no Shi'ite ruler can ever be just. Unfortunately, the most notable among those who subscribe to such a blatantly sectarian school of thought is the much respected and admired Arab intellectual, Fahmy Howeidy.*
Further, they fail to realise, and extend to the Shi'ites of Iraq, the political recognition and legitimacy they deserve by virtue of being the clear religious majority. As such, it is argued that the majority of Iraq must remain without a competent leadership, structure and a cohesive stance and that they must remain politically handicapped when attempting to perform their role in the realm of political leadership. Any attempt by the religious majority of Iraq to formulate plans and procedures in such a capacity, at a time when the future of their country is being decided, is perceived to be an attempt to divide and exploit.
This current of flawed political thought runs contrary to the established fact that the rights of the minority are best guaranteed by the zeal and determination of a united majority. The Shi'ites of Iraq must be united and determined in their efforts to establish and guarantee the proportionally legitimate rights of the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq. If such a unity and consensus is not reached by the religious majority of Iraq at this time, especially when war is a foregone conclusion and the future of Iraq is about to be decided, then the result would be catastrophic for all. The alternative is a dramatic increase in sectarian political polarisation and accompanying political turmoil. The Shi'ites of Iraq are no longer prepared for another redundant and lengthy episode of political marginalisation.
The Shi'a conference must be viewed by the entire region, particularly the Sunnis of Iraq, as an expression of concern and approval by the religious majority of Iraq for the irrevocable rights of the various minorities of Iraq. An objective study of the formal declaration, released at the end of the Shi'a conference, would testify strongly to this fact.
* The writer is a member of the Iraqi National Congress and a signatory of the landmark "Declaration of the Iraqi Shi'a"
* In his article on the Shi'a conference in Tehran published in Al- Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper on 10 March, Fahmy Howeidy wrote:
"Fair representation of the Shi'a cannot be achieved without democracy. To think that fair representation can be achieved within an undemocratic framework is a huge mistake, so it must be asked which of these is more important -- more useful to the people: to have a just ruler, or a Shi'a ruler? One might argue that a combination of the two in a majority Shi'a society is ideal. But if this is not the case, and one must be chosen, I would assume that a just ruler is more important than his sectarian affiliation."
The editor
