Yesterday I randomly stumbled across the "In Depth" programme that broadcasts weekly on the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite channel and it just so happened to be a special episode on the "Shia in the Gulf" and problems associated with citizenship and equality.
Generally one does not expect very honest journalism from the Arab world, let alone Al-Jazeera, but even by their very low standards this was one horrific episode. The actual discussion was pretty decent because it was led by two Shia Arabs, the Bahraini politician Sheikh Ali Salman and the Saudi intellectual Tawfiq al-Saif. The two guests dispelled many myths that some Arabs (unfortunately) still believe about the Shia - their fellow countrymen - but by then Al-Jazeera had already won.
The short documentary that preceded the discussion was filled with anti-Shia rhetoric and the video footage shown portrayed the Shia as a self-flaggelating cult obsessed with cutting open their heads and the footage came with an equally dramatic dose of Khomeini and Saddam during and after the Iranian revolution to invoke the Arab/Persian divide.
The Shia who practice the ritual of tatbir are a minority but the constant repetition (from every angle imaginable) of footage made me wonder if the producers of the programme deliberately wanted to portray the Shia as alien revolutionary creatures who have no purpose in life besides self-harm and
devotion to Khomeini.
The accusations made in the documentary revolved around the assertion that the Shia in the Gulf are both a threat and liability to their countries because they are secretly more loyal to Iran. A particularly colourful contributor to the documentary was the Kuwaiti Wahhabi MP Walid al-Tabatabai. He argued that Gulf states question the loyalty of Shia Arabs because their religious leaders live elsewhere [Iran].
During the discussion that followed, al-Saif chuckled and responded that Tabatabai questions the loyalty of Kuwaiti Shia because of the location of their leaders, but his own religious leader is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, so does anyone accuse him of being more loyal to Saudi than Kuwait?
Tabatabai, who respectfully refers to Bin Laden as 'Sheikh', is also obviously annoyed by the fact that Saddam has given way to a democracy. He claims the US "served the Shia" by invading Iraq but he does not mention the fact that it was the US who served Kuwait by liberating their country. What is okay for the al-Sabah family is somehow not okay for Iraq?
He argues that the removal of Saddam emboldened the Shia Arabs and the spillover effect has led them to demand their rights (how dare they) throughout the Arab Gulf.
Ali Salman was arguing many hold misconceptions due to a lack of dialogue and lack of interest in researching individually and a lot of this is combined with a lack of tolerance and the emergence of a more aggressive and clo
se-minded Arab mindset (both Shia and Sunni). There is a danger of generalising statements of specific individuals and attributing them to an entire sect (I think this was in reference to a previous statement by Usama al-Mnawir, a Kuwaiti activist, who said a Shia cleric who represents a Grand Ayatollah praised the terrorist attacks in the 80s as a service to the nation).
Salman was asked why there is a need for Shia Arabs to follow non-Arab scholars and why they couldn't have their own religious heads, he responded by saying it's because the Shia are not given the freedom and space needed to produce such leaders in the first place.
Al-Saif also called on Gulf countries to give more freedom to
their Shia citizens and provide them with the same opportunities and rights that Sunnis enjoy and that by doing so they will make them a lot less susceptible to outside influence.
The discussion was decent, but the highlight for me remains the shameful portrayal of Shia Arabs in the opening short documentary. Millions of
Iraqis march to Kerbala to mourn the death of Imam Hussain and yet Al-Jazeera chose to focus on a tiny minority instead. They may lack journalistic professionalism, but they certainly do well on other fronts.
Left to Right: Presenter Ali al-Dhafiri, Sheikh Ali Salman and Tawfiq al-Saif
8 comments:
"...made me wonder if the producers of the programme deliberately wanted to portray the Shia as alien revolutionary creatures who have no purpose in life besides self-harm and
devotion to Khomeini"
Made you wonder? This has been clear from the start! The Arab media is in a constant process of trying to portray the Shia as a weird, mysterious, different kind of "cult".
I saw the program; I think overall the discussions after the documentary might have compensated alittle for the terrible footage before that. I like how one of them was asked "What do the Shia in Saudia Arabia want?" and he replied, "What does any human being in Saudia want?"
You talk as if Shiites are human beings
Just as you lie about the Iraqi reality prior to the invasion you like about the invasion itself.
Deep down you know the truth, but you are writing in English to a western audience from London so you assume you can get away with this bullshit. And you can among many in your target audience, but in the Arab world we know better.
Arabs are not sectarian hatefilled people as you like to portray them. neither the Shia nor Sunni Muslim Arabs. We do have a few in each group that are sectarian agitators and they are rejectd by the majority.
You fall into that category. Its clear you are Shia sectarian thug, and a dishonest one.
C'mon Hayder, tell the Brits the truth. Tell them what people like you say in Arabic in Iraq. Tell them you are just happy the US invaded, destroyed the country, and handed it over the Iran and the Iraqi sectarian militias you support.
Don't be ashamed. I am open about who I support and why. Why cant you be this way? It might feel good :)
If you are criticizing Aljazeera you are doing so for political and ideological motives. Based on objective Journalistic standards Aljazeera is the most reliable news source in the Arab world, and among the best in any language.
This particular show you describe as "shallow" is well named. It is truly an In Depth show and proves it weekly. They often feature Azami Bishara the Arab world's leading intellectual.
You're still a young man and appear overly eager. If you want to be a writer and be taken seriously put your sectarian baggage aside, be objective, and keep in mind only a select few subscribe to your Shia-centered narrative, both among the Shia and among others.
Anonymous - your write that: "I am open about who I support and why." Ummmm - if that is the case, then you won't mind me asking: who are you?
Zaid
you are obsessed with personal background? Why? Why should I tell you? Who are you? I alread know you people, did you forget im not British? Im an Arab who knows you :)
Here's what you will do if I tell you.
If I say Im Iraqi, you will call me a Ba'athist murderer and thug who hates the freedom America brought.
If I tell you Im Saudi you will say Im a Wahabi terrorist
If I am from Egypt you will say im from the Muslim Brotherhood who preaches Jihad.
You will attack every Arab who is opposed to America's invasion of Iraq and supports the Iraqi resistance, Iraqis or other Arabs. The only people you will not attack are the Americans and British who invaded Iraq and killed over a million people and destroyed the country.
If you insist to know who I am, all you need to know is I am Iraq! The real Iraq! Iraq al karama! Iraq al 3urooba! Iraq al Jihad wal muqawama!
Iraqi al-shaheed al batal Saddam Hussein!
Dear brother Hayder
I think you wrote an excellent article and those who claim alJazeera is a real news site are clearly a fan of their propaganda.
However I feel obliged to criticize you on two issues. First is the issue of racism and pan-Arabism which has nothing to do with religion. In Shia Islam we do not care where the scholar is from as long as he has reached the right level for people to emulate him. If he is the most knowledgeable then it is reasonable for people to emulate him. Hence, it does not matter where Ayatollah Khoi or Sistani is from. This should have been the answer of the guests not playing into the hands of those who want to divide based on race and nationalism because it is beneficial for them to do so because Shias are a minority in their country.
Second issue which I would like to criticize you on is about tatbir. I would say that right now those who do or agree with tatbir are not in the minority and scholars accept it. There is no reason to reject it to make alJazeera happy. What is next, rejecting zanjeer and beating of the chest which most Iraqis and non-Iraqi Shias do. Shias should educate people about their practices not reject them.
But generally, you have certainly identified good points.
Firstly, their answer was not based on racism, it was based on the fact that Shia Arabs are not given freedom in Arab countries, which is why religious scholars in the Gulf can not compete with those in Najaf/Qum.
Secondly, I did not say anything about scholars accepting or rejecting it. I said the minority of Shia practice tatbir and that is a fact.
Post a Comment