Eye Raki

Is the conflict in Iraq really sectarian in nature?

2012-01-08T21:44:00.000Z

My latest article in the Guardian on the recent political crisis in Iraq.

Iraq is not ready for division

2011-12-27T16:50:00.000Z

My latest article in the Guardian.

Deadly shootings in Saudi Arabia, but Arab media look the other way

2011-11-28T17:44:00.000Z

My latest article in the Guardian on the events in Qatif.

The Real Iraq

2011-10-29T23:46:00.001+01:00

My thoughts on a recent trip to Iraq.

Arab Revolutions: double standards all round

2011-09-25T18:59:00.000+01:00

My latest article on openDemocracy.

The clerics of Najaf and politicians of Baghdad

2011-09-01T00:46:00.000+01:00

An article I wrote published last week in openDemocracy.

Iraq should back Syria's uprising

2011-06-11T10:43:00.003+01:00

My latest article in the Guardian.

Leaving Basra to the bandits

2011-06-01T19:52:00.004+01:00

I was once "randomly" stopped at Heathrow airport after coming back from the Middle East and my passport had visas from several countries "where bad things happen" and was asked what I thought of British troops in Iraq. Maybe the officer thought my answer to that question would somehow determine how likely it was that I would be involved in terrorist activities. I can now simply refer them to this article if I randomly get asked that random question after a random trip to the Middle East.

Obama's Speech: The Elephant in the room

2011-05-22T11:45:00.004+01:00

My thoughts on a shameless attempt to mask an ugly reality. Posted on the British Iraqi Forum:

President Obama’s speech on Thursday at the State Department is neither groundbreaking nor surprising. Despite the rhetoric from both Secretary of State Clinton who spoke briefly before the President about a “bold new approach” in US foreign policy, and Obama himself who bespeaks a “new chapter in American diplomacy”, the realities on the ground tell a different story. The speech was an eloquent, but not substantive, 45-minute charade about an America that is trying to portray itself as a friend of the people of the Middle East. The truth of the matter is no one can cover up the history of America’s alliances with the dictators who are enemies of their own people and this relationship still defines much of US foreign policy in the region albeit with Mubarak and Ben Ali out of commission. The US needn’t worry on this front; they have plenty of other Arab dictators who are still keeping them company. [More...]

The Shia should condemn oppression everywhere

2011-04-26T10:25:00.005+01:00

My latest article published yesterday in the Guardian.

"Shia Muslims across the world constantly invoke the memory of the battle of Kerbala, because in our belief this epitomises standing up to oppression and injustice. It is crucial to note that they may not necessarily have a sectarian agenda in doing so – the horrific slaughter of the prophet's grandson, along with his children, is etched into our memory at a very young age and symbolises an eternal fight against tyranny – but what good is this conscience if we deliberately ignore the fundamental significance of that battle? Specifically that we must stand up to oppression wherever and whenever it takes place, and at all costs" [More...]

8 Years

2011-04-10T12:28:00.002+01:00

Be you never so high, the law is above you. But not in Iraq.

8 Years

2011-04-09T13:18:00.004+01:00

Saddam is history. But Iraq deserves better.

Sectarianism and conflict in Bahrain

2011-03-17T08:34:00.003Z

My latest article on the game being played by the media published in openDemocracy:

"The media and politicians have done Iraq a great disservice by highlighting the overt sectarian identity of the oppressor and the oppressed. It must not make this same mistake with Bahrain. [More...]"

Where is the outrage?

2011-03-09T16:30:00.001Z

Yesterday, a baffled Iraqi parliament completely ignored the very laws it legislates by voting in six MPs to replace ministers who have moved up the food chain.

An Iraqi MP with only 3 votes (himself, his wife, and maybe one of his brothers) now represents 100,000 citizens. But I suppose that’s okay, because the Supreme Court decided to ignore actual votes when it comes to replacement MPs and our great leaders decided to stick to the closed-list system in the name of muhasasa and power sharing. It’s stupid, but not illegal. However, the MP was running for office in Duhuk but now replaces a Minister who was an MP in Baghdad. That is both stupid and illegal.

In Britain, citizens are worried about the police threatening to break the law by going on strike to protest salary cuts. Meanwhile in Iraq, our MPs, law legislators not enforcers, casually ignore the constitution, and their own laws, whilst the issue is whitewashed by the media. Being British Iraqi is depressing.

[Originally posted in the British Iraqi Forum]

We Are Not All Ba'athists

2011-03-01T00:30:00.002Z

My latest post on the British Iraqi Forum on Iraq's Day of Rage.

Sadr's Return to Najaf

2011-01-07T02:14:00.005Z

My article in today's Guardian:

"Moqtada al-Sadr has finally returned to Najaf in Iraq after almost four years of self-imposed exile. Senior Sadrists claimed that the reason he left Iraq was to continue his theological studies in Iran. However, there was another thorny issue behind his absence: Sadr is still wanted by the Iraqi judiciary for his alleged involvement in my father's murder eight years ago." [More...]

I also gave an interview to al-Sharq al-Awsat, which was later translated.

The real tragedy is that Moqtada and his men have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and yet there exists only one arrest warrant with his name on it. There should be an arrest warrant issued to him and his thugs for every single Iraqi whose blood their hands are stained with.

Al-Tayarat al-Sadriya

2010-12-25T23:11:00.005Z

Here are some quotes from an article by The National on the Mehdi Army criminals recently released from jail because of a deal between Maliki and his former enemies (although of course both Da'wa and the Sadrists deny this).

Sadrist MP Amir al-Kinani:

"These prisoners are not going to go back to military operations, they are going to take their place in peaceful civilian life... They are going to teach religion, not extremism, just peaceful Islam."

Jalal Kahdem, Militant #1:

"I was happy to be in jail for Muqtada... It was part of our battle. We now have an important role in the government. Now we are waging a peaceful resistance against our enemies, not a military war, but I am ready to return to [violent] resistance at any moment if Muqtada asks me to."

Abu Islam, Mitlitant #2:

"I will spend the rest of my life begging forgiveness from God and from the families of the Americans and Iraqis I helped to kill... Muqtada and his leadership have a magic way of influencing the young and naive, people with pure hearts and fragile minds, they misled us."

Abu Sadiq, Militant #3:

"I will always be ready to follow Muqtada's orders, my life is for him and I'm ready to fight the Americans again,"

Interestingly, Kinani says "the violent criminals who pretended to be with the Mahdi Army are still in jail, only the innocent Mahdi Army members who did nothing wrong have been released."

This seems to be part of an ongoing attempt to differentiate between the "criminals" and the "good guys". Last week there was a war of words between the Sadrists and Asa'ib Ahlil Haq led by Khazali.

With Moqtada still in neighbouring Iran, the Sadrists have been trying to restyle themselves as a solely political movement with no interest in armed insurgency anymore. The only problem is they have a bloody past. There is still an arrest warrant that has Moqtada's name on it and not even the Prime Minister can wave a magic wand and make it disappear.

Moqtada's role in my father's murder still haunts him and his close advisors. For now, they are trying to make the distinction between the "criminals" and the "good guys" that may one day be their biggest defence in an Iraqi courtroom. Kais al-Khazali, who was a spokesman for Moqtada when he led my wounded father to Moqtada's office, is now an enemy who has formed a rogue element that has nothing to do with the Sadr Movement.

Note: Joel Wing is commenting on both the Sadrist infighting and the deal between Maliki and the Sadrists. Follow his blog for what is bound to be a big story in the MSM in a few weeks/months.

Why We Shouldn’t Be Celebrating Iraq’s New Government: Power-Sharing Means Nothing without Reconciliation

2010-12-23T09:38:00.002Z

My latest article as a guest column on Informed Comment.

"Bickering is still very much the order of the day in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who has just won a second term, may have a functioning government that enjoys the confidence of parliament, but that is no reason to celebrate. Not yet anyway. There is still a war of words (and thankfully, it remains just a war of words) over the remit of the proposed ‘National Council for Strategic Policies’, and confusion also surrounds the fate of the de-Ba’athification commission set up by the American ‘civil administrator’ of Iraq, Paul Bremer, on 16 May 2003." [More...]

Ayatollah Sistani is Iraq’s Bulwark against Iran: Wikileaks

2010-12-02T11:24:00.002Z

My latest article has been published as a guest column on "Informed Comment".

"Najaf will always be a double-edged sword for the Iranians. On the one hand, Iran is able to extend their socio-economic links to Iraq through Najaf, the religious centre of Shia Islam. On the other hand, the rivalry between the Najaf and Qum schools will always remain a thorn for Iranian interests in Iraq as long as there are strong ideological opponents of Khomeini’s view on theocratic government." [More...]

Al-Jazeera's Shallow "In Depth" Coverage

2010-11-30T13:32:00.013Z

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

A Record Worse Than Saddam's? Think Again.

2010-10-28T15:23:00.002+01:00

My response to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's article published in the Independent on Monday.

"Ms Alibhai-Brown, in an opinion piece published in the Independent on Monday, insults the Iraqi people by callously claiming that “the sanctions and war killed, maimed and destroyed more civilians than Saddam did.” Ms Alibhai-Brown’s crass comments were, clearly, more about scoring some cheap political point than it was about giving facts" [More...]

A Return to Sectarianism?

2010-10-04T11:46:00.004+01:00

My latest post on the British Iraqi Forum regarding the political breakthrough in government formation.

"Many in Iraq will be relieved that their elected officials have finally made substantial progress in forming the new government but the result, pragmatic as it may be, is not a healthy sign for Iraq’s democracy." [More...]

The Dilemma of US Foreign Policy: Between Oil and Terrorism

2010-09-13T13:19:00.004+01:00

My latest post on the British Iraqi Forum.

"As many prepare to protest outside the Saudi Arabian embassy in London on 25 September, over a cemetery that was destroyed 85 years ago, they will also be making a stand against an ideology of intolerance that has affected billions across the world." [More...]

Resolution

2010-09-10T22:16:00.004+01:00

Tony Blair - A Journey

Random House: London.

"On 7 March, Peter Goldsmith had submitted his final opinion. As I said earlier he had been over to Washington and had had detailed discussions with the administration lawyers. He set out the arguments for and against and on balance came out in favour. Later, much was made of the 'pressure' on Peter to do so. The truth is he was, and is, someone of genuine integrity. He really wanted to be sure. It was difficult. The world is full of lawyers, and on this, every lawyer was having his or her shout. He felt the responsibility keenly, as he should have. There was clearly a case against in law; but there was also a case for. He debated, discussed, reflected and decided. His opinion was balanced. The argument was balanced. He did his job."

"I understood the importance of the second resolution in terms of political survival and so forth. I confess I always thought it a bit odd in terms of the moral acceptability of the course of action or not. It bestowed more legitimacy, it was true, but whether we got a second resolution or not basically depended on the politics in France and Russia and their calculation of where their political interests lay. We had acted without UN authority in Kosovo. It would have been highly doubtful if we could ever have got UNSC agreement for either Bosnia or Rwanda. I never even thought about it for Sierra Leone. Yet it would be hard to argue that, morally, in each of those situations, we should not have intervened."

"I know that there was never any way Britain was not going to be with the US at that moment, once we went down the UN route and Saddam was in breach. Of course, such a statement is always subject to in extremis correction. A crazy act of aggression? No, we would not have supported that. But given the history, you couldn't call Saddam a crazy target. Personally, I have little doubt that at some point we would have to have dealt with him. But throughout I comforted myself, as I put it in the Glasgow speech, that if we were wrong, we would have removed a tyrant; and as a matter of general principle, I was in favour of doing that."

"Now I would put it differently. Actually there is a parallel [Saddam and Hitler], but it is less about the lead-up to action and more about the general ideology of this extremism based on a perversion of Islam and our attitude to it, and our attitude to the rising threat of fascism. In both cases, there is enormous reluctance to believe we are necessarily in a war. In both cases, our longing for peace blinds us to our enemies' determination to have their way. In both cases, we excuse behaviour on the part of people and states that in other circumstances we would abhor. In both cases, it seems all a bit remote from us and therefore we ask: Why do we need to intervene?"

"The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented. Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others. I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam. "But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted."

Iraq: Countdown to War

2010-09-02T14:50:00.003+01:00

Tony Blair - A Journey

Random House: London.

“In other words, left to itself, the country could have just about managed. What made the task all the harder, occasionally verging on the impossible, were the activities of the outside influences, hell-bent on chaos and destruction. Both al-Qaeda and Iran knew what was at stake in Iraq. Neither was going to let the nation stabilise without a fight, and as our will weakened, theirs grew. It was then only through Prime Minister Nouri Maliki showing (frankly unanticipated) leadership qualities – and the Bush decision to surge – that the balance of will to win was shifted back towards the forces of democracy and modernisation.”

“Inaction is a decision to maintain the status quo. Maintenance of the status quo has its own result, and usually its own dynamic. So removing Saddam had enormous consequence. Failure to remove him would not have been free of consequence. We can debate the nature of such consequence and how profound it would have been, but unquestionably, there would have been one.”

“Above all, there was a sense of an emergency. In this time, the failure to act was indeed an action with its own consequence and that consequence might be profoundly adverse. At that moment, the fear of history’s judgement was not the fear that came with action, but with inaction. How to change the world was a tough challenge to answer; not to answer it, to be paralysed in indecision, was deemed the greater risk, by a large margin.”

“But I was also aware that the new world taking shape around us, Britain and Europe were going to face a much more uncertain future without America. As the defeat of Communism showed – let’s be clear, without America, it would not have been defeated – our alliance with the US mattered… So when they had need of us, were we really going to refuse: or, even worse, hope they succeeded but could do it without us? I reflected and felt the weight of an alliance and its history, not oppressively but insistently, a call to duty, a call to act, a call to be at their side”

“It’s true to say, however, that at that point [September 2002] the downside risk of military action revolved around how easy or hard it would be to remove Saddam, and any humanitarian fallout. There was, of course, also the Sunni/Shia issue, but never at that state – or indeed until after Saddam’s removal – was the true threat perceived: outside interference by al-Qaeda and Iran.”

“Hans [Blix] was a curious fellow. He was smart and capable, and I liked him, but his problem was that he felt the weight of the politics of the inspection. This was quiet natural, but in truth he just needed to do his job… He kept saying, ‘I have to decide for war or peace’, and I kept saying, ‘You don’t. Just tell us your honest assessment.’

“I was about as isolated as it is possible to be in politics… And worrying, not because I might do down – in a sense, so what? – but because so much was at stake. War and peace. The struggle against terrorism… I tried to work out what was the right thing to do. I was past expediency, past political calculation, past personal introspection. I knew this could be the end politically. I just wanted to know: what is the right thing?”

Did Iran really do so well out of the Iraq war?

2010-08-29T18:27:00.005+01:00

My article in today's Guardian.

My favourite comments so far:

The Iranian-paid liar who wrote this total garbage has the gall to call Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army "Iran-backed."

And...

This guy must be Tony Blair in disguise.

Cleric Condones Corruption

2010-08-28T22:27:00.000+01:00

My latest post on British Iraqi Forum.

Can we reconcile jurisprudence with ethics? Do they run parallel to each other or do they sometimes clash? When there is a contradiction, which has to give way to the other?

Goodbye & Hello

2010-08-20T01:50:00.003+01:00

Goodbye soldiers...

Hello contractors...

Ali al-Wardi: Volume 1

2010-08-17T01:37:00.002+01:00

My abridged translation of the first volume of Social Glimpses has now been published. I have already started with the second volume (Iraq between 1831 and 1872) and I hope to finish as much of it as possible during the summer.

What South Africa could teach Iraq

2010-08-13T15:25:00.007+01:00

My article in today's Iraq section in the Guardian.

The article has only been up for a few hours but from first impressions non-Iraqis seem to be dismissing it as nonsense and not even worth a try but Iraqis seem to be more enthusiastic and believe it makes sense. I am happy because at least its not the other way around.

Unfortunately many non-Iraqis still believe Biden's idea, of splitting up the country, is the number one solution for Iraq. No number of Iraqis screaming at them telling them it is an absurd idea will be enough for them. Cue the lame argument: Iraqis are monsters, they don't know whats best for them, and they need to live in human cages.

Hopefully time will prove them wrong.

Update 15/8/2010:

The article has since been translated in Arabic and published in two independent Iraqi newspapers, Al-Aalem and Al-Mowaten.

Iraqism

2010-08-02T14:21:00.000+01:00

Outside law, being Iraqi, in my opinion, has nothing to do with citizenship. A few years ago I met Ayatollah Sistani at his home in Najaf and asked him a very simple question, “how are you?” and he replied immediately in a dreary tone, “look at Iraq, that is how I am.” I then asked regardless of the situation in Iraq, how he was feeling and he calmly showed both his palms and said, “I cannot separate between Iraq’s health and my health” [More...]

Moqtada, Sistani & Hakim, the Future of Najaf

2010-06-15T15:59:00.001+01:00

It's impossible to put a definitive number on Moqtada's supporters on the ground but a strong indication is the 650,000 votes his candidates managed to win in the national elections. If we take the 11.5 million voters as an indication of the representation of the population we can estimate the Sadrists represent 1.7 million people on the street. The mathematics is not fool-proof but if we use the same method with the 2.47 million Kurdish votes (KDP, PUK, Gorran and the Islamists) it gives the indication the Kurds account for 22% of the Iraqi population - not far from the real demographics.

The Sadrist 'victory' in the elections has been greatly over-emphasised and exaggerated by the mainstream media due to the disproportionate number of seats they won. Having said that the Sadrists still have the support of large swaths of uneducated, unemployed and impoverished Shia in the south who see them as their only hope and that is why they are still being taken seriously. People who have nothing to lose can become dangerous with a moments notice.

A vital ingredient in the toxic mix of Iraqi politics is still missing. It is extraordinary that the Sadrists have all this support and not even have a living Ayatollah to boast about. In Shia circles, it’s important to emulate one because it justifies day-to-day actions. Your Ayatollah says you can smoke whilst fasting in Ramadhan. His Ayatollah says I can eat gelatin. My Ayatollah says I can't play poker. Religious edicts that are binding on a personal level but hardly matters of consequence in the dynamic and fast-paced world of international politics. The nitty-gritty fatwas become matters of life and death when it comes to the subject of war, and crucially, a dead Ayatollah cannot declare war.

On the scale of religious credentials Moqtada cannot compare to the Grand Ayatollahs Sistani and Hakim. On the scale of influence Moqtada can compare with both. Followers of Sistani and Hakim play the credentials trump card when debating any Sadrist but the Sadrists are undoubtedly more loyal to their leader. When Ayatollah Sistani says stop looting, no museums or government offices are spared. When non-Ayatollah Moqtada says stop fighting, most drop their guns. That is the difference.

Moqtada has been studying in the Iranian city of Qum for a couple of years now and sooner or later is going to officially attain the rank of Ayatollah. The paperwork involved is a lot less complicated than in Western academia and generally there is more room for flexibility. His followers regularly spread rumours of his imminent return probably to gauge how absurd the Iraqi people find the concept. The more times you hear it, the more normal it becomes.

Moqtada for now has the power to declare war de facto, but when that power becomes de jure thanks to his new credentials, the fatwas will have an added punch and become legally binding to all his followers.

To the elite scholars in Najaf and intellectuals in Baghdad, a huge distinction is going to made between Sistani, who has been studying for over half a century in Najaf, and Moqtada, who besides having blood on his hands has just only received his Made-In-Iran certificate.

To the large masses of Iraqi Shia in Baghdad and the south, the lines are going to be blurred. Both Sistani and Moqtada have black turbans, they both have white beards and they are both 'Sayyids' – direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammed through his daughter Fatima and her husband Imam Ali.

The key element is going to be the relationship that will develop between Moqtada and Sistani and due to the latter’s cautious policy it will most certainly be characterised by a fragile peace.

However, Moqtada’s honeymoon will be over after Sistani’s death and matters are going to be greatly complicated in Najaf. People are already talking about a smooth transition in the marja’iya and the most likely successor is Ayatollah Hakim. Hakim has been openly hostile to Moqtada in the past and its unlikely he will suddenly have a change of heart when he becomes the spiritual leader in Iraq. Hakim once called Moqtada ‘a messed up child’, and that’s just about the worst insult a Grand Ayatollah can ever dish out.

Not before long, Ayatollah Moqtada will become Grand Ayatollah Moqtada, an untouchable who is going to enjoy unrivalled support and a degree of influence and privilege that is going to make many American officials in the previous administration regret not dealing with him when he was just a nuisance in 2004 and Moqtada is going to be a legacy of one of the biggest failures of the Iraq war. Have the Americans accidently paved the way for theocracy through democracy? Maybe not, but brace yourselves for his return and be prepared to witness what is going to be a defining chapter in Iraqi modern history.

Double Standard Double Standards

2010-06-01T16:28:00.008+01:00

Make no mistake about it, had a ship been attacked by the Iranian navy 40 miles out at sea the international community would have been up in arms about the blatant disregard for international law and the United States would have been the first to condemn the act of needless aggression against innocent civilians. Israel would have called Iran 'a nation of pirates' and God forbid if a rival nation's flag was hoisted it could even have been a legitimate reason to declare war.

But then, what do the Turks know about international law and sovereignty? They are constantly shelling Iraqi villages in territory that does not belong to them and they deny even the most basic human rights to a significant proportion of their own population. How would they have reacted if a wave of incoming aid had been sent to the Kurds in the south-east and the convoy openly refused to cooperate with officials?

The murder of 10 'peace' activists was unjustified regardless of how hard they beat up the soldiers and also raised a few questions about the Israeli operation. The commandos are supposed to be professional soldiers who should be used to dealing with pressure instead of losing control and ending up with killing 10 people. Maybe I am watching too many Hollywood movies, but aren't several helicopters supposed to be utilised at once in order to get as many men on the ground, roof, or deck as possible at the same time as apposed to sending in one soldier at a time amidst a crowd calling for their blood. Surely the world-renowned experts in counter-terrorism would have assumed sending one at a time would have been asking for trouble.

The response to this mess has been just as baffling to me as the incident itself. 10 people are killed and instantly I receive messages from people I don't even know telling me to march outside the Israeli Embassy to protest this heinous crime. Yet when hundreds at a time get blown up to pieces at mosques and markets across the Islamic world, all in the name of 'Allah' of course, the response is a lot less dramatic. On Friday almost 100 innocent people were slaughtered whilst worshipping in a mosque in Lahore and no one sent me a text asking me to protest outside the Pakistani Embassy. Muslims on Friday killed roughly 10 innocent civilians for every activist killed by Jews on Monday.

The Israelis are even more confusing, because they apparently knew from Day 1 the flotilla was a convoy of hate filled with terrorists with links to Bin Laden and Hamas who were probably using this is a front for delivering weapons, but then they decide to issue the commandos raiding the ship with paintball guns?

The 'Silent' Coup in Najaf

2010-05-24T15:23:00.007+01:00

It all began with a plea to Sistani from a group of well known and respected scholars. They argued that there needs to be congregational prayers held at the shrine of Imam Ali and that it was a shame no one has been leading the prayers. Sistani listened carefully took it on himself to make sure a short-list of men was carefully studied in order to pick a single scholar to lead the prayers. Eventually they decided on Mohammed Taqi al-Hakim, the younger brother of the other Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim.

On thursday last week he led the prayers at the shrine courtyard which was packed and people had to line up on the streets to pray. The Sadrists saw this and were incensed. A scholar from a rival 'clan' was attracting too much attention on their doorstep (Moqtada's office is only several yards away from the door of the shrine) and they were not going to stay quiet.

They let it go the first day but the next day when the elderly Mohammed Taqi al-Hakim approached the shrine with his modest security detail (I have bumped into him several times in Najaf and I see one, and sometimes two, armed men following several paces behind him) the Sadrists in typical mob fashion blocked his access to the shrine and ordered him to go away.

Next a message was sent to the office of Sistani, which is also very close to the shrine. The words left no one in doubt of just how angry the Sadrists were. "If he comes again we will shed blood [that will flood] up to the knees".

Mohammed Ridha al-Sistani, the Grand Ayatollah's son, and most probably on the orders of Sistani himself, told Mohammed Taqi al-Hakim to stop praying at the shrine to avert a potential catastrophe.

The Sadrist mob effectively vetoed the highest office in the Shia clerical heirachy and forced Sistani to cave in under their pressure. Many moderate scholars in Najaf are furious that Sistani has appeased the Sadrists in such an open way and rightly argue the Sadrists will just get bolder and bolder until they claim the entire city when it will be too late to do anything about it.

Moqtada has just slapped the marja'iya in Najaf and from what it seems, the marja'iya has turned the other cheek.

Unholy Alliance

2010-05-07T17:36:00.022+01:00

Iraqi politicians who use Facebook and Twitter to interact with people are a breath of fresh air that Iraq needs more and more of. I follow several Iraqi politicians on these social networking sites but by far the most interactive is Dr Haider al-Abadi. He is Maliki's advisor, official spokesmen for the Da'wa Party and also the current Chairman of the Economic Committee in Parliament. He not only regularly updates his status but also comments on people's complaints and answers their questions. A rare politician indeed.

One of his recent status' was:

'Our slogans are absolutely not racist or sectarian and I acknowledge there are racist and sectarian people who have tried to drag Iraq into a civil war and who continue to try but Maliki has confronted them with neutrality and with a nationalist stance and pursued the outlaws and terrorists as criminals regardless of their sect. The criminals have no religion and our election manifesto has always been clear about the need to protect the minorities and defend them.'

This struck me immediately on a number of levels. He is obviously making references to the Mehdi Army who clashed with the Iraqi Security Forces and he is actually making a very valid point. The fact that Maliki fought these people means you can level all sorts of allegations against him, but never that he is sectarian. But then I was confused because this statement from Abadi comes on the same day as the announcement that the INA and SLA have united as a single political bloc which means they are only a handful of seats away from forming a majority in Parliament. It means the Sadr Movement, whose military wing Abadi is referring to as criminals, has joined Maliki's bloc. So I asked him a question and below is the public conversation we had on Facebook.

In a nutshell he sees the Ba'athists as the greatest danger to Iraq and I see the Shia criminals as the greatest danger to Iraq. A friend asked me if I could imagine having this conversation 10 years ago with one of Saddam's officials and that I would probably be dead by the second question. I don't think I would even have lasted that long but this newly found freedom is one of the fruits of democracy millions of Iraqis are enjoying with passion.

Me: Dr please explain one thing for me. Maliki wants a strong central government, Hakim wants a weak central government and Moqtada still wants to kill the occupiers. The only thing that you have in common with each other is your Shia background. So how is this going to work?

Abadi: Indeed there are points of dis-agreement but there are many other points of agreement e.g. keeping Baathists out, fighting terrorists, providing services to people, improving the standard of living, supporting victims of saddam, rebuilding cities and villages destroyed by Saddam.

Me: Dr no one is going to say they don't want to improve standards of living and services or fight terrorism, the problem is this coalition does not agree on the very basics of government. Moqtada still wants to fight the occupiers and Hakim is still dreaming of his southern state. I can't understand how this coalition is going to agree on legislation in parliament when everyone wants something else and they can't even agree on a PM. There is no united political ideology but simply a united sectarian background. Proof of this is the choice of Ayatollah Sistani as the final arbiter.

In five years aside from an improvement in security we have not really moved forward. It's back to 'muhasasa', back to 2005 and back to putting personal interests ahead of the country. I just hope innocent Iraqi people do not continue to die because they are ultimately always going to the victims. I wish you could succeed but I don't think that is going to happen.

Abadi: Its never going to be easy. However Hakim and majlis stopped calling for southern federartion since they lost local election last year and for Sadris the occupation is going to end in next year and all agree we are going in the right direction on this. We are trying hard to place the interests of the country above those of the parties or persons. However this is a continous struggle since Allah created man.

Me: I don't doubt for a moment there are many who are trying to move the country forward but what I am worried about is the criminals in Iraq who have been given political power and legitimacy. Whatever happens next, I pray the Da'wa Party does not hand over power to these criminals who we all know have Iraqi blood on their hands. I would rather see the Ba'athists in power because at least they don't represent the madhab of Ahul Bayt.

Abadi: Thats inherent part of democracy where people choose and it depends on awareness of people.

Me: That's true of course Dr there is no debate on that count, but in a real democracy murderers are sent to prison or executed, regardless of patronage. Iraq is still at least 20 years behind in that sense. The murderers of your colleague Ammar al-Saffar are now aspiring to control a security ministry, the murderers of my father enjoy protection in their clerical robes, and more importantly the murderers of thousands of innocent Iraqis enjoy popular support. The Ba'athists are not the only criminals in our ranks, nor are they the only danger to Iraq.

Abadi: I agree but there are theives and criminals in democratic countries who are free either due to lack of evidence or because they are able to manipulate the justice system. Its the same problem and we should always thrive to achieve justice as far as possible, however real justice can only be accoplished in the court of Almighty God.

Me: Dr, again I agree, but the problem is not just with a justice system that allows criminals to get away with murder and even with setting up extrajudicial Sharia courtrooms that execute innocent men and women. The problem is also with politicians and security officials who refuse to act and stay silent. I believe in the court of Allah but I also believe Iraq deserves to have fairness, equality and law here on Earth. No distinction should be made between the son of labourer or the son of an Ayatollah, a layman in a dishdasha or a Sayyid with a turban. Murder is murder. A crime is a crime. Those with no power can only rely on Allah.

"I will never rest until I achieve victory and take revenge from the enemies of this nation and humanity, or I will come to you stained in my own blood and meet Allah, my grandfather the Prophet and the Imams and complain to them about what has been done to us" - Abdul Majid al-Khoei

Abadi: Very moving words by your dad rahimahu-allah and I trust that justice from his killers will be shown in this life and the life after. I still remeber that day very well, we were bordering Iraq and about to enter after the fall of saddam. The news of the murder of your dad came as a shock to us and I wrote a statement and delivered it to news media at the time and still have it on my pc.

Me: Thank you, I just hope the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other Iraqis will not be in vain. Real justice can never be shown in this life so long as there are politicians who put their careers ahead of justice, especially those in the INA. But God works in mysterious ways. The mighty Saddam himself was hanged, so there will be a time for everyone, even Moqtada. I cannot interact with the INA officials the way I do with you, so if you could forward them this article I would greatly appreciate it. http://kitabat.com/i67733.htm

Abadi: Powerful article, would you please forward the original english article, thanks.

Me: Thank you, this is the original.

http://eyeraki.blogspot.com/2010/02/machiavellian-snake.html

Victory for Democracy!

2010-05-05T16:23:00.004+01:00

11.5 million Iraqis turn out to vote, a few million votes get sidelined, the other lesser groups unite purely on sectarian grounds, and then they decide to give decision making power to the clergy in Najaf.

I hope the clerics in Najaf do the right thing and tell these squabbling politicians to get their act together and shoulder responsibility. After all, they are the elected officials. If the next government of Iraq fails because of decisions taken in the offices of the clerics in Najaf they would enjoy the same level of respect their counterparts have in Tehran. This has disaster written all over it.

The senior clerics in Najaf adhere to their own version of 'collective responsibility' similar to that practiced in Westminster-style governments. They may disagree in private and debate each other but when the senior cleric makes a decision, the others will defend it publicly. If Sistani does reject this offer, it is wonderful news because the other three Grand Ayatollah's will refuse to be dragged into this game of cat and mouse with the Iraqi politicians. Fingers crossed he will.

Who Am I?

2010-05-04T11:42:00.010+01:00

I keep telling the world I am not going through an identity crisis, but the world doesn't want to listen.

The Arabs say I am Persian.

The Persians say I am Azeri.

The Azeris say I am Iraqi.

The Iraqis say I am British.

The British say I am 'Other Asian'.

The Asians say I am European.

The Europeans say I am Muslim.

The Muslims say I am Shia.

The Shia say I am Secular.

Sadr Interview

2010-05-02T23:38:00.004+01:00

I just watched the 50 minute interview with Moqtada al-Sadr last month on Al-Jazeera and it has drawn my attention to some issues.

Firstly, both Ghassan bin Jidu (the interviewer) and Sadr are clearly misleading the Arab world with their talk of the great Sadr 'victory' that has shocked and surprised many monitoring Iraq's elections. Nibras explains why here.

At 20:32 Moqtada makes an astonishing admission. Bin Jidu asks him about the hostility and gulf that exists between him and Maliki and part of the reply is "I told the former Prime Minister... Dr Ibrahim al-Ja'afari, I told him you can win the Sadr Movement with just a little [in return] and they will be under your banner - and it was."

I had always suspected Ibrahim al-Ja'fari shook hands with the devil when he managed to get the votes of the Sadr Movement to defeat his challenger Abdul Mehdi in the contest for the Prime Ministerial seat in 2005 but this is the first time I have heard Moqtada explicitly admit that his movement was 'under the banner' of Ibrahim al-Jafari. Only time will tell what exactly it was Ja'fari offered Moqtada in return for his friendship. What ever the agreement was, clearly it was something that Maliki did not want to honour.

The other interesting admission was with regards to US forces in Iraq and the SOFA. In the beginning of the interview Moqtada dispels any doubts people had with regards to whether or not he has officially laid down his arms as he makes it clear he is still involved in armed resistance against the Americans. The worrying point however is that he may not just be talking about the military. At 43:37 he declares "we do not believe Iraq has been liberated by the agreement [SOFA], we believe Iraq will be liberated when the last soldier leaves Iraqi soil... and military bases, not just the soldiers... soldiers, and companies, and intelligence agencies, if they all leave Iraq will be liberated, until then Iraq lacks sovereignty and it lacks independence"

I can only hope that when he mentions 'companies' he is referring to security companies and not commercial companies. If the latter then we are never going to get real peace in Iraq so long as he lives. If he wants every American company to be banned from doing business in Iraq that means he will always have an excuse to play the 'resistance' card. I hope I am being paranoid, because if I am right McDonalds could trigger a war in Iraq.

We Will Prevail

2010-04-27T11:27:00.005+01:00

A history of post-Saddam Iraq in 3 and a half minutes. The wild dogs are Iraq's neighbours. The baby calf is Iraq's democracy. The mother is Iraq's people.

Poor Jihadis

2010-04-22T20:46:00.006+01:00

It's been a really horrible week for the terrorists in Iraq. Besides their leaders killed on Sunday another one was sent on a one-way journey to hell on Tuesday and today one more is arrested in Baghdad. Important information is likely to be 'extracted' from him and this means its not really a good time to be one of his friends in Iraq. With wave after wave of expected raids these coming weeks are going to be really tough for the Wahhabi Salafis but the good news is it will also be really fun for Iraq's special forces and intelligence agents. I am sure they have already set up a death pool and are keeping tallies.

I say we shoot these people in the head, wrap their bodies in the Saudi flag, and fly them first-class with the next Iraqi politician going to Riyadh to meet His Majesty King Abdullah bin Saud. There are so many politicians going to Saudi it wouldn't even cost Iraq a single dollar in transportation costs. Iraq is paying out around $5 million a month in salaries and pensions for our hard-working MP's so we need to start thinking about ways to save money elsewhere. All it would cost, per terrorist, is a single bullet and Saudi flag.

It would be a public relations coup and I don't even want the credit. We could offer their corpses as a gift of friendship to our dear Arab brotherly neighbours. After all, the Royal family there is also 'fighting' terrorism.

There is Much Talk...

2010-04-18T11:36:00.014+01:00

A beautiful poem by the famous Iraqi poet Kareem al-Iraqi. It is about a man making a confession about the love of his life. Most of it is a word for word translation except in some cases where I thought it wouldn't read properly. Of course in Arabic it makes more sense and the entire poem rhymes.

There is much talk on the one I love,

There is much talk on who it is I love.

'How old is she?'

'What's her secret?'

'What's her name?'

'How does she look?'

'Is she blonde or brown?'

'Are your eyes more lovely than hers?'

The thing I fear the most is that you are affected,

So hold on, prepare and brace yourself,

For female jealousy can wound like daggers.

She is more beautiful than all the wonders, more so than you and me.

She is more stunning than all the marvels, and closer to my heart than me.

She is more exquisite than Kareem's poetry or Kathim's greatest hymns.

They say; you spend all night with her? Of course I do!

They say; you live with her? Of course I do!

I live and sleep in her eyes and rest my head on her chest,

She relieves all the worries of life with but a single touch,

Embrace me women, my heart can hear her even in silence.

Baghdad...

And has God ever created anything like you?

WWIII Delayed

2010-04-15T14:43:00.003+01:00

Thank God, and the security services, these planned attacks were not successful. The reaction from the Shia militants would have been ten fold what we saw after the Samarra shrine was bombed. Al-Qaeda and the honourable resistance in Iraq are getting desperate. They are trying their best to reignite the flameless sectarian smoulders from the 2006-2007 era by planning spectacular attacks. They are failing miserably.

Bliss

2010-04-14T16:27:00.010+01:00

Maliki just called a sudden press conference and everyone knew it was going to big news. With tears in his eyes he addressed the Iraqi people and announced "I am stepping down for you." The bombshell news drew applause from an entire nation. "I am willing to work in the next government with Dr Iyad Allawi and I wholeheartedly support his candidacy for Prime Minister... I understand that a power vacuum is only going to make matters worse for Iraq and I cannot bear to see more Iraqi blood being shed simply because the politicians cannot sit down on one table like civil brothers. Our children are dying because we cannot come to an agreement. Now it is time to move on. I have been in power for four years and I humbly ask the Iraqi people to accept my services. Throughout my years in power I endeavoured to achieve security and stability and if my 'resignation' is going help rebuild Iraq then I step down gladly. It was an honour serving the people of Iraq."

"What a leader!" Abu Ali, the owner of a small restaurant in Basra says with a tear already half way down his cheek. "A leader that is willingly relinquishing power to save Iraqi lives?" Mohammed from Ramadi says with equal disbelief. "I don't think there has been a better leader in Iraq since Imam Ali" a cleric from Najaf remarks as he fidgets with his worry bead. "wil-Abbas he is a hero and true patriot" another says readjusting his turban. Most of the Iraqi population is asking "is this really happening?"

No of course its not really happening. This is just a figment of my imagination. In reality its back to muhasasa and tedious tit-for-tat carving of the pie. The kind of negotiations where the last things to be discussed are trivial inconsequential matters such as credibility, competency and qualifications. If we could all eavesdrop it would sound something like this. "I will give you oil and defence but only if you give me foreign and interior." "Johnny you must be on drugs if you think we will let you take any security ministries" "Okay that's fine with us but we want most service ministries" "You can have anything as long as our boy is Prime Minister." "Shall we give the Presidency to the Sunnis or let the Kurds keep it for another term?" "I don't mind either as long as my party gets trade and finance".

Do not be so surprised if the next government includes a death squad boss restyled as Interior Minister or a criminal in charge of national security. Remember this is Iraq. Everything is for sale. Anything is possible. I don't think I will be able to stomach it. Someone please hand me a tissue... or bucket.

Iraq 60 Years Ago

2010-04-12T22:51:00.002+01:00

Part 1: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74823

Part 2: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74981

7 Years Today

2010-04-10T10:26:00.009+01:00

Abdul Majid al-Khoei (16 August 1962 - 10 April 2003)

Khoei was the very embodiment of samaha - a word that does not have a direct equivalent in English as it means more than tolerance, implying acceptance and grace towards other people. - Faruk Jarrar

Khoei's killers understood his spiritual goodness only too well, and the real threat he presented to their profound evil. - Emma Nicholson

Khoei was the best of Islam, and the best of Iraq - Charles Tripp

"I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars". No matter how long it takes, there must be no wavering in the cause of freedom to which Khoei aspired - Lord Avebury

He was painfully aware of the divisive stereotypes which, quite literally, destroy people's lives, and did everything he could to combat them in his adopted country. But, the exile always marked him. He would repeatedly say 'I want my country to have a future' - Michael Wood

Green Zone

2010-04-07T01:19:00.009+01:00

The Green Zone is a fascinating film. Although it is essentially an adrenaline fuelled action-packed thriller it does ask some very challenging questions about the state of Iraq and also brings home some powerful messages. It was interesting how they tackled the issue of the Ba’athists and the previous army and linked it – rightly so – to the insurgency that plagued Iraq for years and claimed the lives of tens of thousands.

One question I have always asked myself is 'what would have happened if Bremer did not disband the army?' and the answer seems to be, as it is impossible to say for sure, that the insurgency would at the very least have had a lot less potential recruits and a hell of a lot less support on the ground from the people. Whatever you may think of the Ba’athist officers, there inclusion in the army would have made the institution more ‘professional’. Now before anyone accuses me of being a Ba’athi I am not judging whether or not that would be a ‘good’ thing or a ‘bad’ thing for Iraq but it is safe to say many lives could have been saved.

The counter argument, which Bremer details in his memoir, is that the old army could not have been re-instated for both political and logistical reasons. The Kurds would simply not accept the old army, the Shia mistrusted the mostly Sunni officer corps and in reality there was no place for the army even if they did re-arm them because everything was looted and destroyed. Bremer morally justified it by arguing the army already disbanded itself and in reality all he did was sign a piece of paper.

Still I find Bremer’s excuse - that it was the only thing that could have been done because leaving the Sunni generals and officers in charge would have been a ‘recipe for civil war’ - both inadequate and also ironically tragic because he never paused to think where these highly-skilled Sunni generals and officers would go once they found out he had fired them. Surely he did not expect them to take it on the chin and decide to sell cigarettes by the side of the road to feed their families?

Also if the CPA was willing to offer severance pay to hundreds of thousands of former soldiers, who had just weeks before been killing Americans, why not simply tell the men they are still soldiers and welcome to be part of the new reformed army and that they would be subject to a vetting process to cleanse the criminals?

I can understand the reason for immediately disbanding the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, Fedayeen Saddam, Ba’ath Militia, Mukhabarat and Amn intelligence services but I am sure there could have been another solution for the standing army. CPA Order No. 2 was certainly not the wisest decision made by Bremer & Slocombe and even the Pentagon later tried to reverse it but we may never know the true extent it played in fuelling the terrorist activities of the insurgents simply because these things can never be mathematically measured or calculated.

Another very poignant moment in the movie was when Matt Damon finally hunted down the Iraqi General and wanted to take him in alive but Freddie suddenly shows up from nowhere and says 'its not for you to decide what happens in Iraq'. That was definitely the best part in the entire film for me and it brings home the message that while Americans can, and will, send their army half way across the globe to secure their national interests there will inevitably be many situations where the people decide when, how and if to act.

On a much lighter note, can someone please tell Hollywood that random Iraqis on the street do not have Wahhabi-Salafi style beards, they wear dishdashes not salwar kameeses and for future reference the Shia and Sunnis are not 'ethnic' groups. And for the love of God could they stop hiring Moroccan, Lebanese and Egyptian actors to play Iraqi characters it is extremely annoying and it makes me cringe every time they try to speak Iraqi Arabic. Aside from that it was a brilliant film and I recommend it for everyone.

Najaf: Poems and Battles

2010-04-06T10:14:00.007+01:00

Al-Najaf is a city that is approximately 7 miles distance from al-Kufa, and is connected to it by a tramway. The population today [1995] is around half a million. Najaf sits on elevated ground relative to the Euphrates in Kufa, which historically has made water scarce as it had to be transported by the ‘saqqayeh’. The water taken from the wells in the old homes is not fit for drinking and so is used for general washing purposes.

Najaf is the natural annexe of al-Kufa, the capital of Imam Ali and the Shia in general. Since Sheikh al-Tusi emigrated there from Baghdad in the early part of the 11th century, the city of Najaf turned into a centre of academic learning where Shia scholars would come from near and far to teach and study at the religious universities. Of course there were already scholars in Najaf ever since it was discovered during al-Rashids reign and a white dome was built by him or the Buyids, but it was in Tusi’s era when Najaf became known as a place of scholarship.

Most probably during the Buyid period, the Shia scholars began to be buried there, and soon after, all the Shia from Iraq and neighbouring lands began to take their dead to Najaf for burial in the ‘Valley of Peace’ cemetery, which may be the largest cemetery in the world.

Najaf has unique characteristics that make it distinct from any other city in Iraq. Firstly most of the population are not descendants of the original people of Najaf. Pilgrims, immigrants and students flocked to the city and many families that are known today as ‘al-Najafi’ are actually descendants of those who came to study or simply came to be within the proximity of the holy shrine. Many of these families began to slowly cut off their ties with their original homes and generation after generation some of these families, who lived there for 400 years, came to eventually forget where they even came from or their original language.

Another characteristic of Najaf is that the majority of the population in the city are close in temperament to the Arab Bedouins. Their tribes, their pride, their hospitality, their generosity and their protectiveness of each other are all aspects that can be immediately felt by anyone who travels there. Perhaps the secret to this lies in its geographical location. On one side of Najaf is the vast Iraqi countryside beyond the Euphrates, and on the other side the empty dessert between Iraq and Hijaz.

This is reflected in Najaf’s market, where both the Bedouins and rural tribes come together to trade. The rural Arabs trade in dates, wheat, flour and rice and the Bedouins in sheep, wool, leather, margarine and bur. These goods come together in the ‘khannat’ of Najaf and are then exported to Baghdad, Basra and Mousil.

It created a special economic relationship between the people of Najaf and the rural and Bedouin tribes who both had homes in each others’ lands to facilitate both the import and export of these goods. This fostered an air of mutual respect and understanding. Najaf has a Bedouin society but is tribal in spirit.

Thirdly, because Najaf became a centre for Islamic studies which had universities dating back almost 1,000 years, the city kept its Arabic language and heritage despite the many attempts of Turkification by the Mamluk and Ottoman officials who tried to change the language of study in the schools and also despite the spread of the Persian language from the east. Najaf was able to maintain it's Arab heritage because the religious classes, and in particular lessons on how to derive laws, depend in a fundamental way on the Arabic language.

It is impossible for a student to properly study the Quran, the Prophet’s Sunna, Nahj al-Balagha, heritage of the Imams, the Prophets companions and the works of the later scholars without having a firm grasp of the Arabic language, its philosophy and all the intricacies and particulars of the language. Usuli scholars are strict about including the condition of mastering the language as one of the requirements of becoming a Mujtahid.

The Arabic language is so intrinsically and innately attached to Islamic studies it comes as no surprise that many of the greatest 20th century poets first matured and graduated from Islamic seminaries. These include the likes of the Shibibi brothers, Sharqi, Jawaheri in Najaf, Zahawi and Rasafi in Baghdad, Shawqi and Hafidh, Taha Yasin, Ahmad Amin, Umar Abu Risha in Aleppo, Bdawi al-Jabl in Jabla, Sheikh Ahmad Ridha in Jabel Amel and Allaeli in Beirut who was a graduate of al-Azhar in Cairo.

Mohammed Ridha Shibibi during the time of Sayyid Bahr al-Uloom, late 18th century, counted no less than 200 poets in the small city of Najaf. Many scholars who later became representatives of the religious maraja’ in places such as Ihsa and Qateef, Bahrain, Ahwaz, Syria and Lebanon took with them a part of the long standing tradition of poetic excellence in the Arabic language. You can feel the obvious essence of Najaf in these cities even though their poets may never have lived there.

Najaf is also extremely conservative and traditional in nature unlike any other city in Iraq. There were no theatres, social clubs, cinemas or other forms of entertainment that could distract the students. The students were unswerving and steadfast in their scholarly work. We did have small coffee shops, which serve nothing but tea, nargeela and refreshments but even these were out of bounds for the religious students.

We didn’t even own radios and in the 1940’s we used to go to the Literary Association to listen to the developments of the Second World War via a radio King Ghazi gifted to the Association along with a precious library. The students in Najaf had no other outlet to express themselves or to unwind other than the 'Poetic Concerts', which enabled young students to showcase their talent. Maybe this explains the abundance of poets, 200 that were known in one instance, in such a small city. Najaf was unmatched even in numbers of its colloquial poets, Haj Zayir, al-Jid, Yasin al-Kufi, Gabechi, Gassab and Rasul Muhyidin to name but a few.

These Poetic Concerts would take place in public on special occasions in schools, mosques and the holy shrine and there would also be private performances at houses when someone we knew was getting married. Poets could freely discuss any topic they wish, be it on philosophy, politics, religion or even social problems being faced in Najaf, Iraq or the wider Arab and Muslim world.

Once a controversial poem is read there would normally be a rebuttal in the form of another poem, and soon 'battles' would commence and the best on both sides go head to head debating through poetry until a clear winner emerges. Students who write down the poetry as its being recited have recorded many of these poetic battles and many of them can still be found in manuscript form in the libraries of Najaf while others have been published as books. As children we used to run to these poetic concerts at every public holiday – and there were many in a religious city like Najaf – to note down the beautiful poetry of the previous generations.

It was in this atmosphere of poetic excellence that the generation of Mustafa Jamal al-Din grew up in.

Arab League Forces in Iraq

2010-04-05T07:09:00.005+01:00

I am having serious problems understanding the rationale behind the recent suggestion by the Arab League to have Arab forces enter Iraq to provide security. Even more confusing is Iraq’s participation in yesterday’s meeting and apparent lack of response. Maybe no one in the Arab League has been watching the news for the past 7 years. Maybe they do this purposely to insult Iraq and spit in our faces or maybe they are suffering from a severe and dangerous form of schizophrenia. What ever it is they need to start addressing their issues and get help. The summit is being held in Libya, whose leader just recently welcomed members of the Ba'ath Party which is still dreaming of returning to Baghdad and still working tirelessly to destabilise the country.

Iraq does not need Arab Forces to provide security; we just need Arab terrorists to stop blowing themselves up and to stop slaughtering our people. Instead of sending us soldiers why can’t they just stop exporting death? That will work out just fine for us and they can save a lot of money that can be redirected to benefit their own citizens. Instead of spending money on logistically complicated military operations or money to train and arm terrorists they can put that money in a bank and enjoy the wonderful benefits of interest.

What next? Qassem Suleimani offering the Revolutionary Guards to conduct patrols in Baghdad to secure the city? Raghad Hussein offering the services of the Fedayeen and 'muqawama' to secure volatile regions in Iraq?

The Million Dollar Question

2010-03-30T17:39:00.009+01:00

Like many other Iraqis, I had no idea who 'Jawad' al-Maliki was when it became obvious he was about to be made Prime Minister. He was chosen as a compromise because many thought he was weak and could easily be managed but little did they know he was about to become a strong leader with a mind of his own. I began to admire and respect Maliki after he proved himself to the Iraqi people to be a non-sectarian non-nonsense Prime Minister who would not hesitate to put his foot down and fight both Sunni and Shia militants. Any Prime Minister who feels confident in sending his army to both Sunni strongholds and Shia strongholds will always win the respect of the people.

Iyad Allawi, when he was Prime Minister, sent the army to Fallujah to deal with the Sunni terrorists and he also sent his army to Najaf, to deal with the Shia terrorists. This is one of the reasons why I voted for Allawi in the 2005 elections. Falluja burned on his watch and yet the majority of the inhabitants voted for him in these elections. In Najaf the turn of events were not as bloody as Falluja but Najaf is more sacred to the Shia than Falluja is to the Sunnis and so the sensitive nature of the attack raised a few eyebrows everywhere. Allawi would have succeeded in routing and humiliating the Mehdi Army in Najaf if it hadn’t been for a certain clique who pressured Allawi to stop fighting at a crucial point when it was clear he had won. That is a story in itself I guess.

Maliki’s onslaught against the Shia militias was much more dramatic and as a direct consequence earned him much more respect. When Maliki took the fight to the south in Basra against the Mehdi Army and other Iranian-backed militias rumours soon began to spread like wildfire of Hollywood-esque shoot-outs between the Iraqi Army and Mehdi Army. Rumours also began to circulate that Maliki was so close to being killed he was confined to specific rooms in one of Saddam’s Presidential Palaces because mortar fire got too close for comfort. Iraqi soldiers deserted and dropped their guns in the middle of the streets and some of them even turned their guns on Maliki and joined the rebels. It was absolute chaos and everyone was baffled.

Maliki was bold and the commander of the British forces was enjoying himself on a skiing holiday and never saw it coming. It was almost a week before the British military took part in the fight and it soon became apparent it was because the British struck a secret deal with the terrorists. British forces guaranteed for themselves no loss of life in exchange for a lawless Basra run by the militias. Once the fighting began the Americans immediately began to provide support to the Iraqi Army but the British had to honour their truce with the Mehdi Army and stayed well clear of any action. Throughout history, the British are not exactly famous for keeping promises but in this case they couldn't have found a more inappropriate time to actually honour a deal even if they tried.

In the end Maliki was successful, the Iranians lost the battle, and the Prime Minister’s name soon became synonymous with ‘security’ and ‘law’. Now it seems, to spite Allawi, Maliki has sent his men to Iran to try and broker a deal with the Sadrists, who have trumped their traditional rivals the Supreme Council, and it seems Moqtada is going to play a semi-key role in forming the new government. The Sadrists clearly won hundreds of thousands of votes and they have a democratic mandate to play this role but it is imperative they are not given any security posts. The Sadrist armed wing has already terrorised the population enough with their ministries, Islamic Sharia Courts, extra judicial executions and moral police and it would be both a crime and catastrophe to see these criminals legitimised and re-styled as police officers and soldiers.

It would be so easy, theoretically at least, for Maliki and Allawi to form a government but clearly neither is willing to swallow his pride and become the subordinate of the other so they will have to look far and wide for enough seats to be able to form a comfortable majority in parliament. To be honest I do not mind a government formed by either of the two - as long as the principles of justice and integrity are not sold, at any price, for seats and power.

Najaf, Our True Origin

2010-03-23T18:16:00.024Z

‘Najaf, our true origin’ is the title of one of the opening chapters of Mustafa Jamal al-Din’s poetry book - ‘al-Diwan’ - that I will hopefully translate and publish here. I just recently discovered the book in my fathers study; the great scholar and poet gave it to him as a gift in 1995.

There is something about the way I feel about Najaf that I can’t explain. I was smuggled out of the city, and country, almost four years-old, with the rest of my family as the 1991 rebellion was brutally suppressed but somehow I became attached to the city even growing up in north-west London.

My great-grandfather first moved to the city 100 years ago, followed by my grandfather who went on to study and teach for 80 years at the religious seminary. Both my parents were born in Najaf and I have vague memories of my early childhood there, of the city's twisting alleyways and the home I spent the first four years of my life in. My father throughout his life as an exile in London wished only that he could see the end of Saddam's reign and return to Najaf, his birthplace and hometown, to one day be buried next to his father in the shrine of Imam Ali. The honour of being buried in such a sacred place is bestowed only to a few. No one imagined it would be so soon but God answered his prayers and granted both his wishes and yet I am convinced it is none of these things that makes me feel the way I do about Najaf. It is something else. It is something mysterious, beautiful and magical.

Every time I see Najaf, every time I touch the earth and every time I smell it – taking deep breathes to get as much air as I can into my lungs and with it the desert sand perfumed by the sweet scented palm trees dancing with the breeze flowing over the Euphrates – I feel suddenly intoxicated. Nothing though, no matter how sweet or beautiful, compares with the first glance one gets of the golden dome that lights up not just the old historic city but also the hearts of the millions of people who come there to celebrate, to mourn, to lament, to sing, to laugh, to cry or to simply bask in the entrancing and enchanting ambience of the shrine and its surroundings.

Sometimes I just sit in the shrine for hours watching people praying and crying, asking God, through Imam Ali as an intermediary, to answer their calls and to tend to their needs. Old men stand before the tomb, in their full Arab tribal clothes, and address the Imam as if he is the final arbiter standing before them and listening patiently to every word they say before making his decision.

The men wave their hands, point their fingers and raise their voices, as defence lawyers would in front of a judge, and they plead for the Imams help in resolving that family dispute which ended in bloodshed, in the business transaction gone wrong or the theft which has left them hopeless and desperate. Unaware and indifferent to the scene they are making it is almost as if they do not notice the hundreds of other pilgrims milling about the place making similar demands.

Some are more self-conscious however and simply lean their heads against the decorated silver pillars of the tomb. They cry silently and talk to their Imam in whispers. While others stand in front of the tomb in absolute silence for a few minutes before leaving, making their pleas deep within their own hearts so no one else can hear them. They all asked the angels for permission to enter before stepping in the sacred mosque and hardly anyone turns their back on the Imam, walking backwards to show the utmost respect to the man, even 1,350 years after his death.

At the time of his burial, the location was a secret guarded only by a few. No golden dome mosque existed and no minarets rose high above a city for all to see. Even 100 years after the death of Imam Ali, Najaf still did not exist. Oppressed when he was alive and oppressed even after his death. The city was founded after Harun al-Rashid's hunting dogs refused to chase a gazelle seeking sanctuary on the holy grounds. The Abbasid Caliph realised there was something special here and, when told who was lying beneath the earth, ordered for a shrine to be built. A pity then that many people forget that once upon a time even dogs could not harm a creature of God on this precious land.

Now clerics and young students sit huddled together listening to scholars giving lessons on a particular verse of the Quran, saying of the Prophet or theological laws of ‘purity’ and ‘impurity’. When random laymen sit by them and listen in, even though they are not students, it is never frowned upon. Poor men in worn out and ragged clothes stand side-by-side men in suits sporting expensive watches and no one pays the slightest attention to the state of the other. They walk together and pray together like brothers who all want the same thing.

I feel instantly depressed every time I leave the city, the emotions kick-in when I get the last glances looking down from the airplane window or looking back at the horizon from the side-view mirror of a car as it heads further and further away from the city I have come to admire and love. In fact, it depresses me just thinking about the place if I am not there and even more so when friends call me and tell me they just came out of the shrine and remembered me, or are just on their way to relax by the Euphrates in Kufa or just had barbequed lamb kebab on the pavement in the middle of the busy zaynul abideen road packed with pilgrims who come from far and wide and residents simply going about their daily business.

Even as I remember some of the crazy things we used to get up to the smiles and laughter quickly subsides and a feeling of longing and yearning sets in for the rest of the day. Like a child who is lost but old enough to understand he would be embarrassing himself if he decided to make a scene and cry so he just wonders about waiting to be found again.

One day I went with a friend to see how the new Iraqi Army was being trained in Najaf and as I stood there and played with the sand with my feet while watching the Americans instruct the Iraqis, a US soldier walked up to me and asked me in a friendly tone what business I had in Najaf. I decided to tease him by saying, truthfully, "I came because I love the smell of this place". I expected him to inquire or to laugh, to mock me or even be insulted but he didn't show any emotion; surprise or intrigue. He looked straight back at me and said "You know, I have been all over Iraq and you are right... Najaf is not the same, it's special here". My heart was doing backflips and summersaults when I learnt that it wasn't just me. I am not going crazy. Even this soldier, far away from his family, friends and home, in the middle of an occupation, wearing full military gear in the heat of the afternoon sun, realises Najaf is special.

The Saga Continues

2010-03-02T21:39:00.007Z

First Chalabi makes an appearance on al-Baghdadiya and talks nonsense. I publish a blog entry here and also send him a private e-mail asking him in God’s name how he could deny something that he believed in another realm, apparently. This angers him and members of his staff call members in my family to pass on the message that Chalabi is upset with me and thinks I have 'misunderstood' him.

Then come the rumours that Moqtada is planning to return to Iraq imminently. Then bombshell news from al-Arabiya that Maliki has given orders to the Ministry of Interior to arrest Moqtada on the charge, still standing, of murder for his involvement in my fathers assassination.

Later a journalist of al-Sharq al-Awsat calls me and asks me question after question after question regarding this case. I say, regardless of authenticity of the news, it is, and always was, just another election game for them.

Then comes news from Maliki's office that Maliki’s orders were no orders and it was all just made up rumours. Ali al-Dabbagh insists Moqtada is a key player in Iraqi politics and news that they want to arrest him is nonsense.

Then the Sadrists announce that the initial rumours were actually started by Maliki’s office in the first place just to cause trouble before the elections. Esma al-Mousawi admits Sadrists were involved in the slaying of my father, but only just two Sadrists, and Moqtada was never involved. I was surprised because aside from the typical lies, it is the first time ever I have heard them actually admit my fathers blood is on their hands.

Amid all this confusion it turns out that Iraq's highest judiciary has issued new arrest warrants for 14 people, including Moqtada. Oh, and the real news is Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer announced he has apparently had a roundtable discussion on this matter with members of the INA and they collectively decided that justice is not really that important. It was not important when Ja'fari was in power, it is not important now, and it will never be important.

It's all happening so fast, but when one takes the time to take it all in only one thing becomes clear. The Sadrists will forever be stained with my fathers blood. Nothing, and no one, can wash it away.

The Machiavellian Snake

2010-02-15T02:51:00.021Z

When I first heard that Ahmad Chalabi recently gave an interview on al-Baghdadiya and was asked a few questions about my father I expected to hear some nonsensical gibberish. I didn't expect him to spew lie after lie in front of the camera.

The first time I met Chalabi was in September 2003 in the al-Khoei Foundation office building in London. He was a brilliant actor. He actually made everyone believe he was genuinely upset about my father and in no uncertain terms made it clear he believed the Sadrists, acting on orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, murdered my father. He then declared very pompously, but seriously 'when I go back to Iraq I will be the first to put a bag over Moqtada's head'. 'من ارجع للعراق اني اول واحد راح البس الكيس على راس مقتدى'

When I heard that Chalabi a few months later was warming up to Moqtada, who as far as I could see had no bag over his head or handcuffs around his wrists, I knew Chalabi was a snake. It didn't take long for me to realise that he had left his friends in Washington and made new ones in Tehran. Courteous relations with the Sadr Movement was now not just expected of him, but demanded.

When he came to visit in 2003 he was President of the Iraqi Governing Council and of course as it was a private meeting his reputation, political career, and most importantly his life, was not on the line. On al-Baghdadiya a few days ago he churned up a very different story because the circumstances have radically changed. Apparently now he has no idea whether or not Moqtada al-Sadr is responsible for my fathers murder, and could not have promised my family that he would see to it Moqtada would be arrested because he claims he doesn't even know who carried out the murder of my father, let alone who ordered it.

Chalabi's recent remarks on al-Baghdadiya is just another cheap attempt to clean Moqtada's blood-stained hands ahead of the general election. Chalabi is running alongside many Sadrists on the same electoral ticket, and he could even get elected this time on the back of Sadrist votes. This isn't the first time my fathers blood has been used as a bargaining chip in Iraqi politics and it certainly won't be the last.

I am certain that if my father knew his death would bring about real change for the Iraqi people he would have died and died again a hundred times over, but what he couldn't have known was that his death, even 7 years on, is being used as some sort of card on the playing decks of sinister and sly Iraqi criminals who are masquerading as politicians. The real tragedy here is that some of these criminals are hiding behind the veil of Islam and are under the banner of the - it couldn't have been more inappropriately named - 'Iraqi National Alliance'.

I do not believe my fathers blood is special because he wore a black turban or is the son of a Grand Ayatollah. I believe his blood is special because he is my father. The Islamists running for election in the INA do however believe in these religious significances and their despicable and utterly shameful indifference or complicity should send a clear warning signal to every Iraqi that is even contemplating voting for them. How many other Iraqi families, like mine, have seen their fathers, brothers, mothers and sisters taken away from them and nothing is done about it because political points need to be scored? The answer is too many.

Now you see?

2010-02-04T13:51:00.005Z

It is 9am on December 8th 1998 in the city of Nasiriya in Southern Iraq. An order is given to Fedayeen Saddam – ‘Saddam’s Men of Sacrifice’ - to behead Abdul-Hassan Misbah, Ehsan Hussain and Mohammed Subhi. Their hands are tied behind their backs, their feet tied together and they are blindfolded. They are carried to a concrete block with their heads hanging over the road like sheep to the slaughter.

Fedayeen, over a dozen of them all dressed in black with masks covering their faces, crowd the condemned. They hold them in place and shift their bodies accordingly to get the ideal position. Before the victims are executed a member of the Fedayeen uses a set of tools to pull out their tongues and then proceeds to cut them. The three men seem resigned to their fate and do not put up any resistance. They do not shake, jolt or even twitch. It is almost as if they died before they died. Whilst one is having his tongue cut off the other is already being hacked to death by a sword-wielding Fedaye who starts from behind the neck until the head is decapitated.

Once they conclude with the heads the Fedayeen hold onto them as trophies and start dancing around them with the enjoyment, excitement and amusement you would expect in a wedding. Their bodies were not even returned to their families. When the mother went to the Fedayeen centre asking for her son she was told he was a traitor to his country and that his body should not just have been thrown to the dogs, but also burnt. The mother finally found her son’s body after Saddam was toppled. Head buried beside body.

This was just another day in Nasiriya.

The execution video, parts of which have since been uploaded on YouTube, was shown to members of the Ba’ath Party and Fedayeen paramilitaries on trial in Baghdad last Thursday and after one of the defendants closed his eyes in horror at the video the presiding Judge, Mahmoud al-Hassan, could no longer hold back his anger. While the video was still playing he remarked ‘Yes look away, as if you never saw it. Look how he closes his eyes. Go on close your eyes, close your eyes! It’s a sickening scene? Now you see? Now you see?’

The Judge orders the video to be stopped and returns his attention to the defendants, a few of which were present when the execution took place eleven years ago. He is furious at the men and tells them even if someone had killed his own father it would be difficult for anyone to carry out a murder in that fashion. He asks how they could have heard of such a thing and accepted it. He declares ‘will you say you didn’t hear? Will you say you didn’t know? Go on, let one of you tell me he didn’t know about this. We used to hear about the Fedayeen and their unit, which beheads people, but we have never seen. We have never seen with our own eyes.’

There was pin drop silence and no one dared to interrupt him. The Judge was visibly shaken by the video. Between his shouts, the only sound that can be heard is the weeping of the mother of Ehsan Hussain, who came to bear witness and had to watch every horrible moment all over again as the video was resumed. She cries as she watches the men dance around her son’s head. The video is then paused and an unmasked face becomes clearly discernible. His name is Falah and he is a member of the Fedayeen. He denies he beheaded any of the men but admits he was one of those celebrating the deaths of these ‘traitors’.

This was just another day in Baghdad.

Chemical Ali

2010-02-03T17:37:00.004Z

Was it worth it?

The Blair Trial

2010-02-01T11:58:00.009Z

The British people are going into frenzy over the Chilcot Inquiry Blair saga. Everyone in the UK is almost shocked Blair did not offer an apology or show remorse. Everyone in Iraq I spoke to said ‘huh?’ or ‘what?’ and have never even heard of the inquiry which seeks to establish why their country was invaded in the first place.

The whole thing is very quintessentially ‘British’. Who said what and why and how that changed who’s view on what which led to the invasion. They are very precise and technical and demand to know every single little detail. Iraqis on the other hand are asking their politicians very different questions. Namely how soon they can live in peace with no bombs going off and less money being stolen.

Tony Blair says he has no regrets for getting rid of Saddam, and that feeling is shared by tens of millions of Iraqis who are not asking Blair to apologise for toppling the brutal dictator.

The British people demand to know why Blair used the WMD line to con them into going to war. The Iraqi people on the other hand know what a WMD looks like, smells like, and feels like. The British people demand to know how UNSCR 1441 made it ‘legal’ for Blair to send in Armed Forces into a sovereign state and occupy it. The Iraqi people are grateful that Saddam’s Fedayeen can longer roam the streets cutting tongues off in public squares and hacking their victims’ heads off with machetes. 7 years on British mothers are asking why their sons have been sent to war on a lie. 7 years on Iraqi mothers can still remember having to pay for the bullets ‘wasted’ on their sons’ executions.

Say what you will of the chaos and destruction that followed the March 2003 invasion of my country. It was, and still is, nothing compared to the three decades of oppression and tyranny the Iraqi people had to put up with during Ba’ath rule.

If your family is being executed one by one by some psychopathic murderers, the last thing you want an armed police officer to think about is the ‘legality’ of his reaction.

The British people are of course not just obsessed with the legality of the war; they discuss its ‘morality’. We have heard the argument time and time again. It was the Western powers who supported him against the war with Iran. It was the Western powers who armed Saddam and gave him so many of his weapons. They seem to be confusing only themselves. Bush was not the President of the US when that was happening and Blair could not even get a seat at the Hackney Borough Council when the Iraq-Iran war started. To say they cannot correct the mistakes of previous governments because it would make them hypocrites is an argument that is fundamentally flawed.

A constant question they ask is 'was it moral to get rid of Saddam?'

The simple answer is that it would have been immoral not to.

Shameless

2009-10-29T21:26:00.003Z

Bush takes decisive action on Iraq. Bush invades Iraq and topples Saddam. Bush hunts down Ba'athist criminals and hands them over to Iraqi officials. New constitution is written and ratified. Democratic elections take place with support of the US. For the first time in around half a century elected officials are actually in power in Iraq. Ba'athists criminals are tried and sentenced. Saddam is executed for crimes against humanity. The end of a dark chapter in Iraqi history. Bush signs off Iraq to Maliki. Bush promises to withdraw US troops from Iraq. SOFA negotiations begin. Iraq and US come to terms. Agreement is signed...

and Obama just waltzes in like a princess and claims the credit?

Hypothesis

2009-10-12T22:58:00.005+01:00

If the previous provincial elections are anything to go by, the next general election is going to be very interesting. Of course Maliki swept the provinces last time round but his main advantage was that his opponents were divided, scattered and running against each other. This was a luxury he is not going to have in January.

A friend of mine took a hypothetical look at how the results would look like based on the number of seats the political parties won in the provincial elections. He then grouped the parties together according to their current alliances and the result is somewhat fascinating.

The Iraqi National Alliance consists mainly of SIIC, Sadr, Ja'fari, and Fadheela. The big guns on the State of Law Coalition are the Da'wa Party, Da'wa - Iraq Organisation and the Independent bloc.

Maliki's coalition equals 'the rest'. In my opinion this is a testament to Maliki's strength and power in Iraq but of course the general election is not exactly going to be like the provincial elections.

One important note to make is that during the provincial elections the choice, in many cities, was between the Shia Maliki, the Shia Hakim or the Shia Sadr. In the general election there is going to be much more at stake. Cue the sectarian drum rolls please. On pen and paper the Iraqi National Alliance is much more sectarian than Maliki's coalition and this could, no actually it will, give them the upper hand with the sectarian voters.

It is going to be virtually impossible for either party to win a majority in parliament (138 seats) so as ever the post-election alliances are going to be closely monitored and the Kurds and Sunnis will become the kingmakers. Due to their history the Kurds are going to be more inclined to join Hakim but the Sunnis would prefer Maliki who is fielding a larger number of Sunnis in his coalition.

The Sunnis, Kurds and Christians on board with Maliki also give him more credibility in terms of having a 'real' Iraqi alliance. Head to head, there could be a difference of just a dozen seats between them.

Baghdad 999AD

2009-08-15T03:36:00.001+01:00

Here is interesting passage from the introduction to the translation of the book Kitab al-Irshad (Book of Guidance) by Mohammed al-Baghdadi, known more commonly as Sheikh al-Mufid. He was born in the late 10th century and is renowned for being one of the greatest Shia scholars. The introduction by translator I.K.A Howard, University of Edinburgh, gives us an insight into sectarian life in Baghdad a thousand years ago.

“Although the period was a much more favourable time for Imami-Shi’ite scholars, it was not without friction between the Shi’ites and their opponents. Two Shi’ite festivals had been established. The commemoration of Ghadir Khumm on the 18th of the month of Dhu al-Hijja, and Ashura on the 10th of the month of Muharram. These festivals were instituted by the Buwayhid Mu’izz al-Dawla in 962. The Ghadir Khumm festival commemorated the occasion on which the Prophet, when returning from the farewell pilgrimage, declared Ali to the mawla (master) of the people and commended him to them. This was taken by Shi’ites to be an explicit designation of Ali for the Imamate. Ashura commemorated the martyrdom of al-Husayn in Iraq. In retaliation to these two festivals, the Sunnis instituted two rival festivals in 999 on the 26th of Dhu al-Hijja and 18th of Muharram, on which they celebrated respectively Abu Bakr’s stay in the cave with the Prophet during his emigration from Medina to Mecca, and the death of Mus’ab b. al-Zubayr, who had defeated the rebel al-Mukhtar, who had risen in vengeance for the death of al-Husayn. These festivals became a frequent source of violence between Shi’ite and Sunni partisans. There were several occasions on which serious violence occurred between the rival factions. On these occasions al-Mufid was banished from the city of Baghdad because of disturbances but it does not appear that al-Mufid was in any way responsible for instigating these disturbances. Rather it appears that the Buwayhids, in order to preserve order and give an appearance of even-handed justice, felt it necessary to find a scape-goat among the Shi’ites. Al-Mufid was sufficiently important for them to pacify Sunni sentiments.”

I wanted to write an essay on how depressing it is to see how much Iraq has progressed in terms of sectarianism (amongst other things) over the past millennium but I found a quote that saves me a lot of time.

“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.” - George Bernard Shaw

Ali al-Wardi & The Angry Sheikh

2009-07-28T14:38:00.006+01:00

Ali al-Wardi, the man who introduced Iraq to sociology, made a lot of enemies by virtue of his academic work. When writing about Iraq's history, culture and faith he made sure to take off his Shia cap and analyse even the most sensitive Shia doctrine through objective lenses. Naturally, because he himself came from a Shia family, many of those intellectual enemies came from the Shia ranks that saw him as a traitor to their faith. Even today, when I mention his name in front of hawza students or Shia clerics I can see them flinch. It works almost every other time.

Many of them cannot disagree that he was one of the best scholars Iraq produced in the 20th century but their praise is withheld because his religious beliefs were 'messed up' and he was 'confused' and/or had really bad experiences with men of religion in the past and that his work was his special way of getting back at them. On his hit-list was not just religion, but communism and pan-Arabism too, the three strongest movements during his era. He was a rebel.

One thing for certain is that he did have bad experiences as a result of his work and the following incident is just one example narrated to me by an eyewitness. It is also a testament to the good manners and strong character of Wardi.

It was a hot summer's day in the early 1970's and Sheikh al-Waeli had just given a lecture on Imam al-Mehdi, the 12th Shia Imam, in the Hashimi mosque in Kadhimiya, Baghdad. A group of men sat down in the courtyard of the mosque after the lecture had finished discussing religion and politics, and probably also complaining about the weather like they do today.

At the head of the group was Hussain al-Sadr and Ali al-Wardi. During their discussion a young Sheikh had just walked in and sat down at the back of the group. The Sheikh was known for his die-hard Shia identity and some jokers in the group decided to have some fun with him. They told him all about Wardi and his blasphemous beliefs.

The Sheikh was already filled to the brim with love for all things Shia, which can also mean hatred for all things anti-Shia. He was especially in love with the Mehdi, and his friends would constantly tease him when ever they saw him and ask "So, any news from the Mehdi?"

However the Sheikh had no idea who Ali al-Wardi was let alone what he looked like so after the men in the group had finished winding him up one of them pointed to the man sitting next to Sadr and said "That's Ali al-Wardi!"

Sadr and Wardi meanwhile have no idea what is going on and while Sadr was in the middle of a sentence the angry Sheikh stood up, walked to the front, and shouted "Are you Ali al-Wardi?". Wardi, whose fingers are interlocked over his walking stick and who is resting his chin on his fingers, ignores the question and gestures to Sadr to continue. Before Sadr could speak the fuming Sheikh went on a rant. "How dare you speak against Imam al-Mehdi? How dare you deny his existence?"

Arabs are very particular and delicate when it comes to hospitality and guests. In this instance, for example, Wardi is a guest of Sadr and if a guest is insulted by a third party in the presence of the host, it is the host who is responsible. Sadr is therefore embarrassed but before he can do anything to stop it the young Sheikh gathers saliva in his mouth and spits extremely hard on Wardi's face. A grave insult by any standards.

Sadr jumped up and began to apologise to Wardi for the outrageous behaviour and everyone in the courtyard was shocked at what they had just witnessed. Even the men who had just wanted to have some fun by telling the Sheikh about Wardi stopped smiling. The joke was over.

Wardi calmly took out his handkerchief, wiped the spit off his face and said to Sadr "Sayyid continue" as if nothing had happened. Sadr was still shocked and again apologised several times but Wardi cut him off and said "It's okay, he is a simple man, please Sayyid continue"

Moqtada to Mehdi Army: "Let's Talk"

2009-07-12T16:44:00.010+01:00

Mehdi Army militiaman taking a sniper position near the Imam Ali Shrine, 19 April 2004

A recent video has emerged showing Moqtada al-Sadr speaking to members of the Sadr Movement and Mehdi Army in what appears to be Iraq. There are many 'special' moments in this video.

He admits that many of his militia have no prior experience with handling weapons and that they have caused unnecessary damage because of their lack of training. He admits his militia was infiltrated and that corrupt forces have stained the image of his movement. He admits there are factions within his own party that are at war with each other. He admits, inadvertently, that he had no real control of the Mehdi Army and that they have not always been following his direct orders.

He starts by telling his followers that he has "missed them" and wants to take this opportunity to "chat" with them. Followers can be heard crying because it has been a long time since they have seen their leader in person. He smiles and says "come on, finish [crying]"

On more than one occasion he commends the Mehdi Army for the "brave stances" they have taken in trying to "liberate Iraq". He says that his militia has "sacrificed a lot, and their stance will not be forgotten by God, history and society". He explains that if it wasn't for the corrupt forces everyone would have supported the resistance, and that they would have liberated Iraq.

In one part of the video he tries to unite his followers, he says "the enemy has tried to destroy the resistance from the outside, this is expected, but I don't want you to fight between yourselves and destroy the Mehdi Army from within. The infighting stains the image of the Mehdi Army and it is not acceptable... Ali ibn Abi Talib allied with Mu'awiya to fight against the foreigners, so how can you not even unite between yourselves?"

Mehdi Army militiaman fires a mortar in Najaf, 9 August 2004.

In one of the first posts on this blog I mentioned one of the classic techniques used by the militia in Najaf when they were fighting against the Iraqi and US armies in April 2004. The militia would forcibly enter civilian houses, get onto the roof, fire mortars at enemy positions and then quickly flee. Within minutes, the house would be mercilessly leveled to the floor by the US army who would assume it was a militia base.

Moqtada in this video says these tactics are "wrong" and "haram" (forbidden). To fire mortars into populated areas, not knowing whether the bomb would land on innocent civilians or the enemy, is also haram. He relates a story of having his own house in the Hanana district of Najaf being under fire from mortars fired by the Mehdi Army.

He also vaguely refers to the Shari'a Courts set up by his men. "People who use their position in the Mehdi Army to appoint themselves as judges and then punish civilians... is haram"

Members of his movement would place innocent civilians on trial and often execute their victims, leaving their bodies in underground basements to rot. Many people in Iraq would live in terror in areas where the Mehdi Army had a strong hold because anyone could be taken to one of these so-called "Islamic Courts" on a mere whim.

He illustrates the dangers posed by untrained forces when he mentions an incident that occurred when a Spanish contingent passed his brother's house. Bodyguards were positioned on the opposite side of the house and when the Spanish convoy passed the guards opened fire. Many of the bullets ended up being fired directly at the house they were supposed to be protecting.

Another interesting incident he reports is when members of the Mehdi Army attacked members of the Iraqi police. He says "they called [my aide] and explained they had just attacked an Iraqi police convoy. They seemed very excited about it. I told him [my aide] to tell them [militia] it is haram and they replied "what? are you an agent?"... They made me an agent!"

He is angry at the people who act unilaterally and says "Whoever does wrong, [the blame] will reach me, and then [my father] Mohammed al-Sadr, and I will spit on the face of whoever wrongs him"

Mehdi Army militiaman takes position in a street in Basra, 27 March 2008.

The most shocking statement, which reveals his control (or lack thereof) over his own militia, came after he thanked the Mehdi Army for the first and second uprisings in April and August 2004. He praises them but then shockingly adds "on the souls of your fathers, why the third?"

The third uprising, in March 2008, only ceased when the Iranian's intervened. It led many to believe that the clashes were fueled by elements in the Iranian regime.

This effort in trying to sugarcoat his movement and make himself more Mahatma Gandhi-like does not make sense to me for two reasons, firstly because the first and second uprisings also involved the Iraqi police and army, so if it is haram to kill fellow Iraqi's what made it halal to do so in 2004? Secondly, Moqtada himself, with tongue-in-cheek, urged the Iraqi government to honour the soldiers who defected during the March 2008 battle because they were doing their 'duty' to their nation and Islam but now Moqtada is implying he had nothing to do with it.

Moqtada could be trying to disavow himself from the crimes committed by his followers and attempting to cleanse his hands from the blood that has been shed, but as Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

The obscure and unpredictable Moqtada just became a lot more enigmatic.

It's a Pity

2009-07-07T16:54:00.007+01:00

I really do pity some of the Islamists. I know that it can be slightly contemptuous at times to feel this way about anyone but there is something seriously flawed about the way their brains are hard-wired. I have seen and heard many weird and wonderful things in my short stay on planet Earth but I am still shocked by the absurdity and stupidity of some human beings. It's such a shame.

Take this as an example. It was a debate last week on Al-Jazeera on their flagship "Opposing View" programme. It was about political Islam. On the one side there was Dhiya al-Mousawi, the moderate, who was claiming that political Islam had died, and on the other side Mohammed Ghulam, the Islamist, claiming political Islam is still on the rise in the Arab and Muslim world. At exactly 35:40 an interesting conversation followed:

Mousawi: "Who killed Sayyid Majid al-Khoei?"

Ghulam: "Who killed him?"

Mousawi: "I don't know you tell me?"

Ghulam: "Do Islamic parties kill?"

Mousawi: "Yes! Some of them kill"

Ghulam: "No! Lies!"

This short excerpt is a classic example of the ignorance of some of the Islamists. Ghulam is actually insulted when he is saying "do Islamic parties kill?". It was actually intented to be a rhetorical question and no one should have the audacity to insinuate in any way, shape or form that Muslims can actually kill.

Mousawi did more than just insinuate. When he gave the correct answer of "yes" Ghulam shot back with "lies". Mousawi is so bewildered at the naiveté, mental incapacity and obtuseness of his opponent the look on his face is priceless.

Iraq, Iran, Shi'ism & "Guardianship of the Jurist"

2009-06-28T11:16:00.023+01:00

By now most of the world has calmed down after witnessing the chaos that swept the Iranian capital and elsewhere after Ahmadinejad was proclaimed, by his friend the Interior Minister, to have won the Iranian elections by a landslide. Iranian's have stood strong, either in their support of the current President or in support of the challenger Musavi. The louder of the two of course being the latter. After many rounds of violence and bloodshed it is clear that the establishment in Iran has won the battle. Every day they remained in power the opposition weakened. However the protesters have managed to deal the Supreme Leader a heavy blow that he may never fully recover from. The blow itself was not fatal, but the infection could very well be.

Up until recently, no one would have dared shout "Death to Khamanei" on the streets. That would have been considered to be uncouth even for the dissidents because according to the Iranian-version of Shia Islamic Jurisprudence the "rahbar" (leader) acts on behalf of the 12th Imam, the hidden leader who will return to the Shia as a saviour and spread justice and peace to the world.

Khomeini left no one in doubt of the powers that should be granted to the Supreme Leader. The semi-divine status, given to himself, was at complete odds with traditional and mainstream Shia Islam. Shi'ism was not blind to the fact that religion plays an important role in the daily affairs of the Muslims but it had always called for limited interference from the clerics. Khomeini was not the first to dream of a ruling cleric and he was influenced by the ideas of 18th century father and son scholars Mohammed Mehdi and Ahmed Naraqi.

The Naraqi's (pictured) take their name from the village they were born in near Kashan, Iran in 1716 and 1771 respectively. They theorized that the scholar should also have power even in the political sphere and that an able jurist could also become a ruler. This theory was put into practice by Khomeini who expanded on the thesis and became an absolute authority over his subjects in Iran.

For those who are unfamiliar of the lengths Khomeini went in his argument that he should be obeyed as an absolute ruler this is an extract taken from the website of the Supreme Leader - note the constant references and comparisons Khomeini makes with the infallible Prophet and Imams;

"If an eligible person with these two characteristics [knowledge of the law and just] rises and comes to power, he will acquire the same wilāyah (authorities) which were established for the noble Prophet Muhammad (s.) as far as administering the society is concerned. And, therefore, all people are required to obey him."

This revival of Naraqi's thought did not go down too well with the majority of Ayatollahs. One man who did back Khomeini was Hussein Ali Montezeri. He published "Studies in Guardianship of the Jurist" and advocated the rule of the jurist on Islamic grounds. Ironically, after the revolution Montezeri saw the failure of good governance and was silenced after he raised his concerns with Khomeini. He is now still under house arrest in Qum for his opposition to the Islamic government.

Khomeini paved the way for this revival in a series of lectures he gave in Najaf in 1970. His lectures were quickly compiled and published as a book that was distributed to his followers. His main opposition at the time came from Abul-Qasim al-Khoei, who dismissed the idea of unlimited 'wilayat al-faqih' (Guardianship of the Jurist) because it had no legal basis or precedent for the Shia. He bases his argument on a verse of the Quran:

Only Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. [Shakir 5:55]

The meaning of the word "wali" is a major point of debate between the Shia and Sunni schools of thought. Regardless of differences in opinion between the two schools the Shia all agree that this is the verse in the Quran which explains the divine status of the 12 Imams. My grandfather argues that there can never be a jurist who can have the same "wilayah" (guardianship/authority) as the Imams and Prophet because God makes it clear that 'only' a certain few can have this status.

The schism that appeared continues to be relevant today. It is the focal point of everything that is going on in Iran today and it has also affected the future of Iraq. Debates over who was right and how much influence the clerics should have over the daily lives of Shia Muslims continue to this day with both sides passionately disagreeing with each other.

The issue of 'wilayat al-faqih' is still the most obvious difference between the Najaf school in Iraq and the Qum school in Iran.

The ignorance of this issue, or indifference, was a factor that led to the crushing of the 1991 uprising in Iraq. The United States feared, most likely due to resident Arabists, that if the rebels overthrew Saddam they would establish an Iranian-style theocracy in Baghdad. However, the Najaf seminary, and Iraqi's in general, would never have allowed the clerics to have the same powers their counterparts enjoy in Iran. This is even more evident when one looks at Iraq today.

"Wilayat al-Faqih" will be at the heart of the debate in the Middle-East and for Shias in particular for many more years to come because it is so central to what makes their world tick.

Natural Alliance

2009-06-12T15:21:00.004+01:00

An article I wrote on the historical relationship between the Kurd's and Shia Arab's in Iraq published in the Kurdish Herald.

It was one of the most famous attacks against the British after the end of World War I. 200 Kurdish rebels joined forces with 400 Arab Shia rebels, led by Sheikh Hadi al-Makdoor, and attacked a British post in southern Iraq just before dawn. It was a surprise attack and the rebels overran the British barracks and killed over 300 enemy soldiers while capturing more than 100 British-Indians. This particular Shia-Kurdish attack against the British was immortalised by a famous Arab who shouted after the battle in poetic prose “Two-thirds of paradise is for our Hadi, and one-third is for kaka Ahmad and his Kurds!” [Continued...]

Essay: Why did the US invade Iraq?

2009-06-10T17:24:00.002+01:00

‘Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy [towards Iraq] … is dangerously inadequate…in the long term, [the only acceptable strategy] means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy’ –

The above is part a letter that was sent to former US President Clinton in January 1998 and was signed by 18 former senior government officials, including some who made a come back in the Bush administration, like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (Allawi 2007, p.62). Later that year regime change was officially on the agenda when the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton and outlined the measures to be taken to support Iraqi opposition groups in order to bring democracy to Iraq.

Some of the reasons for going to war include geo-political ambitions, oil, Israel, WMD’s, the war on terror, spreading democracy and a flex of American muscle.

Regime change was on the agenda when Clinton signed the ILA but the wheels were set in motion long before the Act was even drafted. In July 1996, a new report titled ‘A Clean Break – A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ was produced and signed by many neo-conservatives who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein as ‘a strategic objective for Israel’ (Allawi 2007, p.65).

While protecting Israel could be a reason for going to war it could not be the publicly stated reason, for very obvious reasons. One of the most mentioned reasons for going to war against Iraq was the threat posed by WMD’s. One thing for certain is that Saddam not only had these weapons but he had used them against his own people in horrific acts of genocide and mass-murder. But did he still have them by 2003? The Bush and Blair administrations certainly believed, or at least wanted the rest of the world to believe, that he in fact not only still had access to these weapons but that Iraq could deploy them within 45 minutes of the order given by Saddam. The report on Iraq’s capability became infamously known as the ‘dodgy dossiers’.

In September 2002 in response to a parliamentary question on whether or not Blair would support regime change in Iraq the Prime Minister responded by saying that while regime change in Iraq would be a good thing it would not be the purpose of going to war against Iraq. The purpose was clearly defined as disarming Saddam of weapons (Hansard). In January and February, just one month before the shock and awe campaign began, Blair made it clear that the reason for going to war against Iraq was WMD’s. Blair said in an official statement on Iraq “I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”

While Blair doggedly stuck to the WMD line, the US government persuaded its people by adding the threat of these weapons with the benefit of regime change in order to re-shape the Middle-East. The Americans have not signed up to the International Criminal Court and were less worried about the legality of war. Blair couldn’t speak about regime change because if that was his reason the war would have been illegal under International Law. For the Americans however, regime change in Baghdad was to be the ‘key that unlocked the whole of the Middle-East’ (Dodge 2005, p.7)

Another reason for going to war, and one not lost on members who encouraged and supported the war in the US was to give the world a mighty show of American muscle. David Frum & Richard Perle (2003,p.33) argue that as well as the obvious victory over Saddam, promoting democracy and eliminating the threat of WMD’s the invasion of Iraq meant the world could see ‘vivid and compelling demonstrations of Americans ability to win a swift and total victory over significant enemy forces’ and this would no doubt send a clear message to countries like Iran and North Korea. Patrick Cockburn (2007, p.2) also points out that the main reason for the invasion was because ‘the White House thought it could win such a conflict very easily and to its great advantage’.

The invasion plan was born out of a new foreign policy that advocates pre-emptive strikes in order to safeguard US and her allies’ interests. Speaking to Congress shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks the US President pointed his finger at several states who he claimed were state sponsors of terror. This was in effect the pre-battle speech on the ‘War on Terror’. Bush made it clear when he said ‘this [Iraq] is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world, states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an ‘axis of evil’, arming to threaten the peace of the world.’ (Galbraith 2007, p.71)

Another reason for war was that the Pentagon had a certain circle of neo-conservatives who believed that the Gulf War in 1991 had left ‘unfinished business’ which had to be dealt with (Tripp 2007, p.270). In other words, Bush the son needed to finish off what Bush the father started and topple Saddam for real this time with brute force and not just threats.

Ties with terrorist organizations were also cited as one of the reasons for going to war. Although Saddam was a secular dictator, it is argued (Frum & Perle 2003, p.46), that he would, and did, join forces with Islamists who although have radically different ideologies actually have something in common. Hatred for America. Documents recovered in Iraqi Intelligence HQ revealed that Bin Laden had discussed with the Iraqi government a joint campaign against the US. There is also some intelligence to suggest that Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda’s no.2, visited Baghdad and received funds from Saddam in 1998, before he joined forces with Bin Laden.

Another often cited reason for the war was of course oil. The codename of the invasion of Iraq was only changed to ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ after the acronym for the suggested codename ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’ - OIL - was noticed.

Former President Bush and former VP Cheney have strong ties to the oil industry and securing a country such as Iraq, with its vast seas of undiscovered crude oil would be extremely beneficial both personally and for the interests of their country. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan revealed in 2007 ‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’

Just a few months after the war started the Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said ‘We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities... [access to oil] is our ultimate objective’ (BBC).

Whether it be because of oil, WMD’s, links with terrorism, Israel, human rights, promotion of democracy or even divine intervention, the war against Iraq will forever change the Middle-East and we all had front-row seats to see the removal of one of the most horrific and brutal dictators of the 20th century.

Bibliography:

Cockburn, Patrick. 2007, The Occupation, War and Resistance in Iraq, London: Verso.

David Frum & Richard Perle 2003, An End to Evil, How to Win the War on Terror, New York: Random House.

Galbraith, Peter W. 2007, The End of Iraq, How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, London: Pocket Books.

Tripp, Charles 2007, A History of Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dodge, Toby. 2005, Iraq’s Future: The aftermath of regime change, London: Routledge.

Allawi, Ali 2007. The Occupation of Iraq, Winning the War, Losing the Peace, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Premier In London

2009-05-03T17:26:00.011+01:00

Maliki arrives for the "Invest Iraq 2009" conference at the Landmark Hotel in central London last Thursday. Photo from Sky News.

On Saturday evening over 500 Iraqi expats packed the King's Suite in the Hilton Metropole on Edgware Road to listen to PM Maliki and to have a chance to ask him questions face to face. Almost every sect, political ideology and denomination was represented in the hall.

Maliki was pretty impressive, and reminded me of an Arab version of Tony Blair. Although he looked grumpy the whole time, he was calm and confident when he spoke and answered questions. Maliki lacks the charisma of Blair and Obama, but like many other good politicians he has mastered the art of answering a question without really answering it. Sometimes people hear just what they want to hear, and applaud anyway.

Speaking to the professionals living outside Iraq, he urged them to come back and help build up their country. He argued "You say you cannot come back until everything is secure and Iraq is prosperous, but I say Iraq will not be prosperous until you come back and help in the reconstruction effort... It is the chicken or egg dilemma... Of course you will not enjoy the same services you enjoy in the UK or the same salaries, things will be different but you have to make sacrifices because your country needs you"

He added "I appreciate many of you cannot simply lock your houses and leave everything behind, as I did in Syria, and that many of you have children growing up and studying here, but those willing to make the sacrifice can come back with me". He quipped "My plane back to Baghdad is empty" and the crowd applauded at the gesture.

The security was extremely tight, nothing like when Talabani or Hakim were in London, although of course this time half the executive government was sitting in the same room. Security would regularly walk up and down the rows of chairs scanning faces and talking quietly into their microphones.

The only incident of the day happened when a Ba'athist told Maliki "Those who killed and hurt the Iraqi people remain Iraqi". Although technically what he said was correct, it did not go down too well with the crowd, who jeered at him and cut him off. One man got up and tried to confront the Ba'athist but was forced to sit back down. The Ba'athist did the right thing and walked out as soon as he saw the hostile reaction from the people. Maliki did nothing, he just sighed and rolled his eyes.

On the issue of the Ba'ath Party Maliki said "There are many Ba'athists working now in Iraq, we allow those who have no blood on their hands to join us. Our problem is with the people who have killed... the criminals"

Maliki's only slip up of the day was when he was asked by a member of the Mandaei community "What is the government doing to protect the Mandaei people in Iraq from ethnic cleansing?". He started off with a good answer. "The Mandaei people were not the only ones being targeted in Iraq, the terrorists targeted all the Iraqi people. The Shia and Sunnis in Iraq were being slaughtered before the terrorists started with the Mandaeis". But then he continued "I have a strong personal relationship with..." He paused. "Sheikh..." and another pause. He forgot the name of the Mandaei leader. He looked to his left and asked the chair "What's his name?" and after being told said "Yes, Sheikh Sattar, I have seen him many times and we keep in contact constantly"

On corruption the message was clear. "It's happening" he said "and we trying our best to combat it. Corruption is something we inherited from the previous regime". Another issue according to Maliki was that a lot of the Iraqi politicians are being targeted by their enemies who throw corruption allegations left, right and center. Many honest people have their names tarnished by anonymous posters on the Internet who may have a personal grudge against them. "We cannot rely on people who write up stories on the Internet and then sign off with names like 'Truth teller' and 'Loyal citizen'. If anyone knows something about someone let them come forward with evidence and we will take action"

The crowd burst into laughter when one women asked the Iraqi Prime Minister "What is the status of women and what role do women play in society in Iran?". After the hall had settled down she managed to compose herself and ask the question again correctly this time. Maliki said "Do not ask me what the role of women and what the role of men is, ask me what the role of the Iraqi individual is". Another round of applause.

When questioned about the deficit in the Iraqi budget, and how the government expected to pay salaries with oil prices so low Maliki reassured everyone that this will not affect salaries. I hope he is right.

Fresh From Najaf

2009-04-20T13:20:00.004+01:00

Latest joke from the ground.

Q: Why did Hakim lose the recent elections?

A: Because his slogan "Ma'akum Ma'akum" (with you, with you) was misheard by the people of Iraq as "Ma'a Qum Ma'a Qum" (with Qum, with Qum).

Dogs & Politics

2009-04-15T01:16:00.003+01:00

Last week just on the outskirts of Diwaniya I saw something very weird. I knew there was something different about Iraq the moment I set foot on its soil. I could smell it in the air and I could see it on the faces of the people. But what I saw was my first proper sign. Near a police checkpoint a stray dog ran up to an officer, careful not to be within kicking distance, and wagged its tail. The officer who was enjoying a sandwich threw it on the floor and gave the dog a snack. For those that remember, there used to be special curfews in place not to curb suicide car bombs and terrorism but to give police space for their periodic dog culling. Sometimes all you can hear is a single shot and silence, but sometimes after the bang comes the moaning and agonizing cries and you just know the dog is bleeding to death. In anycase this time the dog was not given poisoned meat or thrown into a cage as food for the big cats. It was a nice thing to see.

Despite the recent lapse in security, things for the most part have been steadily improving. If only the terrorists knew that with every car bomb and suicide attack their chance of a future in Iraq goes further and further down the drain. I mean all the terrorists. The Ba'athists still dreaming of a united Arab nation, the Arabs still dreaming of a Caliphate, and the Shia militia still dreaming of their own country. The recent attacks in Baghdad have not been different from previous attacks. Still cold-blooded, still indiscriminate, still cowardice.

On the political side there is now a stalemate with regards to the next Najaf Governorate. There was a meeting on Saturday between the main parties concerned and each sides stubbornness was only matched by the other. The Sadrists are not worried about positions in the council but they want to head the security effort in the province. SIIC who would rather drop dead then see their arch nemesis ask them where they are going at checkpoints have refused outright. Although Maliki has allied himself with Sadr's men he is also determined not to risk even more lapses in security by handing the security keys over to the side who went to war with the Government several times. Da'wa will keep security firmly in their hands and will likely tempt the Sadrists with a few key positions.

The biggest problem now is the number one spot. No one knows who exactly is going to be the next Governor. SIIC, who have won 7 seats, have threatened to pull out altogether if they do not get the no.1 prize. Da'wa, who have also won 7 seats, have been saying that they have formed a coalition (something SIIC could not do) and so it should be they who dictate the terms. SIIC's counter is that Abdul Hassan Abdan, the previous Deputy Governor, came second in Iraq in terms of votes to his name. He was beaten only by Haboobi in Kerbala. Da'wa do not care if Abdan came second or last. They do not want him to be in charge. As an ex-member of the Badr militia, Abdan has strong ties with the Iranian regime and Da'wa do not want the future Governor of Najaf to 'open the doors' to Iran. The tension in the room was rising and neither side was willing to give in.

Today the issue is still not resolved but a decision is going to be made very soon.

6 Years Today

2009-04-09T03:41:00.002+01:00

I can't believe it has already been 6 years. It seems like yesterday I watched the statue of Saddam fall in a symbolic ceremony that indicated the Ba'ath regime was finished. Three years ago I wrote the post "3 Years On". At the time I was angry that people had given up on Iraq. Many journalists wanted to portray Iraq as a failed state because that type of news sells well. I was angry because they did not understand Iraq and they did not understand what the people of Iraq had already gone through in the past. Iraq is a great nation and its proud people cannot be destroyed no matter how hard the Sheikhs from Saudi, the terrorists from the Levant or the agents from Iran try. Iraq will prevail and it will become strong and remain a thorn in the eyes of its many enemies. I wrote:

"Why do people expect so much so fast from a country whose people had to suffer 3 decades of unimaginable terror!?

"It took Great Britain 500 years to agree on a constitution (that isn't even written) and to unite. Over 600,000 American's died during 5 years of bloody war fighting for freedom and for their constitution. How long did it take Germany to recover after Hitler and his Nazi party!? How long did in take for Japan to recover after WWII!? How long has it been since Baghdad fell!? 3 years...Only 3 years. It will take at least a generation of time before we can finally have peace in Iraq."

Basically my message was give Iraq a chance. Today, I am glad that the last sentence I wrote 3 years ago was wrong. Completely wrong. We will have peace much sooner. Time will never heal the scars but the country will return to normal before long. When the youth of today grow up and read/hear about the chaos that spread through their country they will be upset and angry but at the same time they will admire the courage and determination of their people.

At the time of writing Iraq was almost slipping into an all-out civil war. The terrorists had just blown up the holy shrine in Samarra and that was the trigger that caused even more chaos in Baghdad. Many Shia were unwilling to show restrain in their retaliation. It was indiscriminate, violent and at times, simply barbaric. The journalists were not making things up but the bias was clear. This was Bush's war. Bush is bad so the war was wrong and nothing good could come of it. It was that type of news that was regurgitated so many times it made you sick.

A year later, when the terrorists finished off what they started in Samarra and blew up the shrine (again!) Maliki put it much more eloquently in an article in the WSJ. America had its civil war. Why expect freedom to come easy to Iraq?

I don't know how Iraq managed to survive. I don't know how the Iraqi's managed to survive. But they did. Every morning bad news and then in the evening even more bad news. The instinct for survival was probably just as vital as the surge and Maliki's jihad against the terrorists.

During the battle for Basra I was in Najaf waiting for a friend who was stuck in the south because of the fighting. The people of Basra, who must have been living through hell, stood firm and they prayed for the Iraqi soldiers. I remember in every phone call I could hear loud gunfire and explosions and my friend was not phased. He would say that people had already stocked up on food, couldn't leave to go anywhere and on top of that they would have soldiers storm their houses one by one in a bid to cleanse the city. Yet they were not complaining. They were in fact happy that finally someone was doing something about the criminal gangs that controlled the city like war lords. In a couple of weeks Maliki had defeated the militias and less than a year later had a swift victory in the local elections.

Many people deserve praise for turning Iraq into what it is today; The coalition soldiers whose blood has been shed on Iraqi soil and mixed with the blood of Iraqi policemen and soldiers fighting a common enemy. The Iraqi politicians who had many sleepless nights trying their best to make sure Iraq does not free fall to disaster on their watch. Perhaps no one deserves more praise than the people of Iraq who are truly the unsung hero's of this tragic story. Hopefully a story that will have a happy ending. They sacrificed for their family and they sacrificed for their country. They stood strong against foreign powers and today the message is as clear and strong as ever. A new Iraq was born in 2003 and it is here to stay.

LOL

2009-04-03T14:37:00.003+01:00

This is what one senior SIIC official had to say about the election results to a group of Iraqis when he recently visited Iran.

"Does Maliki really have a strong mandate in Iraq? How many votes did he actually manage to get? One million? More? Well in the general election Allawi managed to get a very similar number of votes. Most Shia parties were against Allawi, the marja'iya was against him too, and yet he still managed to get over a million votes. There is nothing special about Maliki this time.

"It was a conspiracy against SIIC. The election results were fixed by people who wanted to make sure SIIC failed. In many areas in Baghdad where we had a strong footing the people were forced to vote in a different area to where they were living. This of course means not everyone could go out and vote. We lost many votes like this.

"Even after the votes were cast, our observers would call us immediately and tell us we did very well, yet when the containers get sent over to the central office for finalization, strangely our numbers decrease dramatically. This happened many times. Something went wrong and we are sure many of our votes were deliberately not counted and ignored"

Although this is comical it is no surprise. I was in my home in London watching the elections with friends on different Iraqi channels. Mainly Iraqiya, Forat, and Sharqiya. Three channels all with a different agenda to push. We sat for hours switching between these channels and they were pretty consistent. Iraqiya was all Maliki, Maliki and more Maliki. Sharqiya was having a heart attack over fraud and vote rigging and Forat was airing good news about how smooth things have run. Then something very strange happened. Forat suddenly put breaking news that there have been security breaches (i.e. rigging) and Sharqiya was now airing opinions that for the most part the elections were transparent. Sharqiya turned into Forat and Forat turned into Sharqiya. We couldn't believe our eyes and ears.

This is the Bush/Kerry 2004 conspiracy...Iraqi style. The million dollar question is who is going to be the Iraqi Obama and put the fake Prime Minister Maliki to the sword. And who says politics is boring?

Newton's Third Law

2009-03-27T21:32:00.008Z

In the spring of 2006 when hardly anyone outside of Baghdad (including me) had even heard of a man named 'Jawad' al-Maliki the SCIRI leader made a strong statement to his officials. It was a private meeting and Hakim intended to make sure no one left the room with even a shred of doubt of his influence, power and status in Iraq. In the typical swagger that was, at the time, epidemic in the party Hakim said "Who is Maliki? I told Ja'fari that the road in front of him was closed. He had no other option but to step down. Now if I want to I can order Maliki to step down and make Abdul Mehdi the Prime Minister"

Adel Abdul Mehdi was not present when those words were spoken but no one else in the room had even raised an eye-brow. This was the most powerful politician in Iraq, of course he could change the Prime Minister and President if he but said the words.

One of the main reasons the election results came as such a shock to the SIIC politicians was because everyone even remotely affiliated with the party believed they were invincible. And why would they think otherwise?

They had a leader who has a history of opposition in Iraq, comes from one of the most powerful Shia religious families in the country, lost dozens of family members in the struggle against Saddam, has more money than anyone can count and finally but not least commands his own private army. Each one of these factors in itself is enough for someone in Iraq to be important.

History in our culture is very important. It matters who your father, brother, uncle and grandfather is. In official documents the name of a person consists of his name, his father's name, and his grandfather's name. Religious lineage is even more important. Hakim is the son of a Grand Ayatollah. If your famous family happens to be a famous religious family, that is an extra bonus point.

Martyrdom in Iraq is seen as a privilege and honour. If someone's father or son is martyred he or she will have a label for life; "the son of the martyr/the mother of the martyr". Hakim not only had dozens of family members (including 6 brothers) executed by Saddam but he had just recently lost his last remaining brother in a terrorist attack on the shrine in Najaf. Money and guns...well that's a no-brainer. Suffice to say that when Hakim spoke, everyone listened.

Anyone going through the check-list could easily tell that Hakim beats Maliki where it matters. Except of course in something which is a new phenomenon in Iraq. The ballot.

Although SIIC feels defeated and let down by the people they also feel betrayed by Maliki. The only consistent thing I have heard from SIIC so far is the sense of betrayal. They believe it was Hakim who made Maliki into what he is today. Without Hakims support and defence Maliki would have just been another Da'wa member. Maybe one day a Minister. Or so they say.

It is not just the ascent to power that they argue was down to Hakim and SIIC, but also his stay in power. Hakim gave Maliki his unconditional support in the fight against the Sadrists in 2008. Ex-Badr militiamen played a role in helping the IA tear apart the Mehdi Army. Maliki should owe his very existence and survival to Hakim. Although these claims are far fetched (the Sunnis and Kurds played the biggest hand in making sure Ja'fari stood down and Hakim was not the only supporter of Maliki in his war with Sadr) the result remains the same. Hakim helps Maliki defeat Sadr. Maliki trumps Hakim in the elections. Maliki allies with Sadr. Hakim, who is already isolated, now feels betrayed.

Now it seems SIIC officials actually care about what the people want. One angry official told me "And what about the people of Basra and Baghdad? They voted for Maliki not because Da'wa had a better manifesto than us, but because Maliki fought against Sadr. Their vote was a vote against Moqtada, so how can Maliki now ally himself with them?" and after a short pull on his cigarette added "What would the people say?"

At best, SIIC will now take a back seat, distance themselves from Maliki, pray the next provincial governments are not better than the previous ones and hope to come back in 4 years time with an election campaign that revolves around the failure and incompetence of the local authorities. At worst, they will make sure Maliki fails.

Strange Bedfellows

2009-02-23T13:35:00.006Z

Discussions to form coalitions in the provincial governments between the winners and losers are almost over. As no party won the majority they need each other in order to effectively run the provinces and watching how this plays out is somewhat fascinating.

Almost immediately after the first indications hinted at a Maliki victory the secular ex-Ba'athist Allawi who chose to stay in opposition because he couldn't stand UIA policies on many issues, including federalism, was seen cosying up with the Islamist Hakim who is still dreaming of an autonomous oil-rich south. The Sadrists, still bearing the scars from Maliki's relentless onslaught against the Mehdi Army in the Spring of 2008, have decided to be on Maliki's team.

It is precisely this weird dynamic nature of Iraqi politics, I think, that makes Iraq such an interesting subject for foreign scholars. For some Iraqis its just downright funny. The Iraqi Army, on direct orders from its Commander-in-Chief, spent three months last year fighting, and more importantly defeating, the "outlaws" (a fancy name Maliki decided to give the Sadrist Mehdi Army) in Basra, Baghdad and Amara but now the Sadrists are willing to form coalitions in the south just for the sake of seeing Hakim on the losing side. Allawi who was given harsh treatment, to put gently, by Hakim's followers has suddenly decided it would be a good thing to work with Hakim.

Perhaps these rounds of negotiations show that rivalry between the Sadrists and Hakims has previously been underestimated. It is true that the Mehdi Army has clashed with the Badr Brigade on previous occasions, most spectacularly in Kerbala when the Sadrists tried to take over the shrines, but these clashes could be seen as petty when compared to the battle, or rather war, that raged between Maliki and Sadr's Mehdi Army.

When the Mehdi Army burnt down the offices of Badr and Hakim across Iraq the Badr gunmen inside the buildings were given strict orders to evacuate and offer no resistance. The rivalry between Sadr and Hakim must now be so bitter that Sadr prefers to join Maliki, the man who destroyed the Mehdi Army, and ignore Hakim, the man who has shown restraint and caution towards the Mehdi Army.

Although the Sadrists were beaten by Hakim in some of the southern provinces they will be able to effectively marginalise SIIC once they complete the deal with Maliki. It will be back to the drawing board for Hakim and rumours are already spreading about plans to undercut the local provinces with social welfare programmes. Also the $2.4 billion allocated to the provincial authorities will need to be cleared through the Finance Ministry, which is controlled by SIIC.

Maliki and Sadr will need to be careful to make sure they do not step on SIIC's toes because no one knows what will happen if they are pushed into a corner. There is fresh talk of assassinations and newly discovered "Nejadiyat" (named after the Iranian President) IED's in Najaf and the last thing anyone, not least Maliki himself, needs is bloodshed. Although that is highly unlikely to be the work of the high ranking officials in SIIC the fear is from rogue elements in the party and disgruntled players who may not necessarily take their orders from Baghdad.

New Era

2009-02-13T13:07:00.004Z

The provincial election results seem for the most part to be a vote of confidence for Maliki who managed to defeat Hakim in all the provinces previously controlled by SIIC. Maliki managed to gain Basra from the Fadheela party and also Maysan from the Sadrists.

Strangely though Kerbala, the only province Maliki's party had previously controlled was lost to Yusif Haboobi, an independent candidate, but Maliki is not going to worry too much about losing a province when he just gained 9 others.

Throughout 2008 I heard from many people who had simply had enough of SIIC and their direction, policy and attitude. Many of those I spoke to predicted that Hakim would lose a few provinces but no one predicted that this would happen. The results came as a complete shock to everyone in Iraq, not least to members of SIIC and the Hakim family.

The most embarrassing defeat for SIIC seems to be Najaf, Hakim's birthplace and what was once his power base in the south. This defeat is not only shocking because Najaf has always been historically linked with the Hakim family but because Najaf was one of the few cities in Iraq where the provincial government actually provided many services for the people.

The reconstruction of Najaf by Governor As'ad Abu Gilal and his Deputy Hassan Abdan (both members of SIIC) was used as a model by the other provinces because Najaf set the bar at a higher standard. New roads, schools, hospitals, bridges and even an International Airport are just some of things accomplished by the local government.

Last summer when I was coming back to Najaf from Rifa'i, a city in Dhi Qar, I asked the taxi driver whether or not we had reached Najaf and he said, in a depressing tone "Well can't you tell? Look at the roads and pavements. Of course we're in Najaf". The progress in Najaf both in terms of security and infrastructure was clear for all to see and drivers who pass by or stop in Najaf always complain about the state in their cities. So for people of Najaf to vote for Maliki instead of Hakim is a bold statement. No doubt SIIC members have been asking themselves where it all went wrong every since the initial results were published.

Parties in Iraq tried to use some very desperate measures in order to gain votes. These tactics could very well have worked 4 years ago but now the average Iraqi who receives a blanket or radiator from a political party just a week before the elections starts to question this act of charity. He or she will wonder why they did not receive this blanket last winter, or the winter before that.

Al-Forat used classic propaganda tricks to fool the public into thinking they will be the winners. A few days before election day they were broadcasting sample polls from across southern Iraq indicating that SIIC had around 50% of the votes in many of the cities. These attempts, as well as Hakim's sectarian "Ya Hussain" campaign proved to be futile.

There is a clear sign of maturity of the electorate and the success of these elections should be a lesson to all the politicians in Iraq. If these results are anything to go by then the next general elections could be a turning point in Iraq's history. The people will no longer vote for a party because it is more "Shia" or "Sunni" than another. The people want security, water and electricity (for now) and the politicians better listen up good or they will meet the same end every Governor in Iraq is about to face.

Elections & Imam Hussain

2009-01-27T14:17:00.012Z

With over 500 political parties taking part in the coming elections and with over 14,000 candidates running for office it is no wonder why so many Iraqi's have trouble making up their minds.

Everywhere in Iraq, streets are lined with election posters and there are pictures of candidates in every pose you can possibly think of. For the Iraqi parties these elections are important because each provincial government can pass its own laws and decide how and where money is spent. For the people it is better still because they know the names of the candidates and can vote for a specific person. The Shia parties have not run as a single coalition and this will make the results much more interesting than the previous elections. They, as well as the people, will know how much of the 'street' they control in specific cities.

The two big Shia lists, Maliki's State of Law Coalition and Hakim's Al-Mehrab Martyr list are expected to take the majority or large minority of the vote. The Sadr Movement are not taking part in the election but have given their support to the Free Independent Movement. Many "Independent" lists are taking part because they feel the big parties have failed to provide the necessary services for the people and the big parties have thrown in many of their followers in some of these lists so as to not put all their eggs in the one basket.

There is a political war being fought in the name of Islam between the Hakim and Maliki parties over the rituals and traditions that take place in Muharram. The spiritual leader of the Da'wa Party is Ayatollah Fadhlallah and the spiritual leaders of the Supreme Council are the "Marja'iya", a name that vaguely refers collectively to the Grand Ayatollah's based in Najaf.

Ayatollah Fadhlallah considers the shedding of blood by Shia Muslims an innovation that has nothing to do with Islam. He was publicly demonised by the clerics in Najaf and Kerbala for attacking such a widespread practice. The majority of the Grand Ayatollah's however, do not consider "tatbir" to be forbidden per se and accept it with a few conditions that differ from Ayatollah to Ayatollah but the general conditions are that it is allowed if it does not cause serious damage to one's health and also if it does not cause damage to the image of Islam.

As a young kid growing up in London I have been (and taken part) in countless "tatbir" debates and every now and then a prominent scholar does something or says something that sparks these debates again. This time it was Sayyid Hussain al-Shami who caused outcry among the clergy. Hussain al-Shami is the Imam of the Dar al-Islam Foundation in London, a veteran Da'wa member and cultural aide to Prime Minister Maliki. In a speech given this year to members of his London congregation he condemned many of the rituals that take place in Muharram. Although nothing he said was new or out of line with what many Da'wa leaders have repeatedly said it was the timing that made the difference. This was in Muharram and in the middle of an election campaign and his rivals made sure to counter attack.

In Najaf, scholars were quick to condemn al-Shami and the Da'wa Party in a letter that was later published in Buratha, one of Hakim's media outlets. The letter started with "The Islamic seminary in Najaf condemns the speech by the Prime Ministers' aide [Shami] and demands the party he belongs to to seek forgiveness from Allah and apologise to the millions of 'Hussainis' after his damaging speech on the rituals of Muharram". It is important to note that not a single cleric signed the letter personally and it could possibly have been written by a single person. In the same letter another Da'wa member Walid al-Hilli was accused of giving a speech in Mecca in front of Shia and Sunni scholars saying that the millions who marched to Kerbala do not pray i.e. are not religious Muslims. A week later, Hilli refuted these claims in a press release and denounced them as lies.

A recording of the Shami speech in London was played to all four Grand Ayatollah's in Najaf. They expressed their strong beliefs that the rituals that take place in Muharram should continue in Iraq but were careful in not pointing their fingers directly at the Da'wa Party.

This couldn't have come at a better time for Hakim whose political party used the attack on the rituals of Muharram to their advantage in their election campaign. Al-Forat, the station owned by Hakim and used as his political mouthpiece, changed their 290 (election number) logo to include the words "Oh Hussain". Hakim's aides, including his son Ammar, have toured the cities of Iraq warning the people that the legacy of Hussain is under attack and that if they want to make sure these traditions are kept alive they should vote for their list. An unorthodox mixture of politics and religion that reduced many in the crowd to tears.

What makes the attack by Hakim strange is that his party was quick to point fingers at the Da'wa Party but not once have they ever spoken out against Iran, where the practice of tatbir is strictly forbidden. The Basij, a paramilitary unit loyal to Ayatollah Khamanei, are deployed on the 10th of Muharram in many Iranian cities and publicly beat up anyone carrying a dagger that is used for tatbir. Although it is obvious why Hakim does not condmen the Iranians and why Gaza was on the agenda in his election campaign it just goes to show that contrary to what many are claiming, this has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with politics.

Forget about water, electricity and services, this election for many will be about who loves Imam Hussain more, the 'sell-outs' in Malikis list or the 'standard bearers' in Hakims list.

Traditions

2009-01-20T20:15:00.017Z

The festivals of Muharram in Iraq are like no other across the globe not least because of the Battle of Kerbala took place in Iraq in 680 AD. In every city, from North to South, Iraqi's mourn the tragic event that would cement the Shia-Sunni divide for centuries to come. Across the world many have lost their lives for the innocent crime of belonging to one of these two sects. Sunnis have massacred Shia and the Shia have massacred Sunnis for no other reason than being members of opposite sects of the same religion.

The fuse of this bomb was lit immediately after Prophet Mohammed's death when Abu Bakr became Caliph but the explosion occurred when Hussain Ibn Ali and his companions had their heads decapitated and paraded in Damascus while their bodies were left unburied in the scorching desert of Kerbala. The battle is seen as a civil war by historians because on one side of the battle field stood the grandson of the Prophet with 71 of his closest family members and friends and on the other side a 30,000 strong army led by Omar Ibn Sa'ad sent by the Ummayad Caliph Yazid Ibn Mu'awiya. Hussain refused to pay allegiance to Yazid and the price he paid was his head. The battle ended after only a few hours. The end result a quick and decisive victory for Yazid. Every man, and in some instances, child, that faced the army of Yazid was killed.

Every year, for the past 1,320 years, the Shia have mourned the death of Hussain. For many of these years, and especially during the reign of Saddam, the Shia have been arrested, tortured and even executed for publicly mourning. The pilgrimage to the Imams shrines is always encouraged except for when there is a danger to ones life, property or family. However, the pilgrimage to Kerbala is the only exception and is not discouraged even if one fears death. Because of the persecution the Shia have faced it has become part of their "Shia" identity.

Every gathering that mourns in some way or another is called a "Majlis" and there are lecturers who speak to large crowds of the lessons to be learnt from Kerbala in almost every main road, neighbourhood and mosque in Najaf. These usually take place inside buildings or under tents erected solely for this purpose. After the lecture the people are reminded in graphic detail what fate awaited the men in Hussain's army who charged the enemy against the odds. Men cry and beat their chests ("Latum") to the poems that are recited.

Meshiq

On the streets, for the last 3 days, the "Meshiq" starts after sunset. Hundreds of men wielding swords stand side by side and swing their swords in union to the sound of drums beating away. They are signifying symbolically that they would have been ready to fight with Hussain if they had been born in a different era. The most time consuming, colourful and most watched ceremony in Najaf is the "Masha'el" procession.

Masha'el

Before the days of electricity, when a tribe or family had a funeral procession at night they would use fire to show who ever was watching that they were mourning and this is a tradition that continues to take place in Iraq. Huge aluminum coated wooden beams with burning flames weighing over 100kg are lifted by well-built men and carried towards the holy shrine. Surrounding the wooden beams are dozens, and sometimes hundreds of men, most wielding swords and daggers, who march with the flames. Every so often the man carrying the beam swings it around in circles and the people around them duck to avoid being hit. Twice I saw men who couldn't duck in time and ended up being dazed for several minutes after the heavy beam hit them across the head.

On the last night, the 9th of Muharram, there were 84 lit beams representing different families, tribes, areas and even streets in Najaf. It took almost 5 hours for the procession to end. After it finished I headed towards Kerbala with a few friends and due to the special occasion the security was unprecedented. The car could not enter the city center and so we had to walk the rest of the journey.

Dweyreej run

Around a century ago, a tribe from Dweyreej in Southern Iraq decided to run bare foot from the Imam Hussain shrine to the Abbas shrine and this is another tradition that has been resumed after the fall of Saddam and is known as the ''Dweyreej run''. It becomes so crowded at the shrine gates it is a miracle none of them get trampled to death.

The most controversial act of mourning is "Tatbir". Thousands of men shed blood by striking the top of their heads with razor sharp daggers to the sounds of trumpets and drums. Sunnis condemn it outright but the Shia are divided. Some openly encourage it and others forbid it. Many of the people get dizzy from the loss of blood and their daggers end up being forcefully taken away from them for fear of death.

Tatbir

The controversy surrounding some of these traditions has recently come to light in spectacular fashion and my next post will be about how this division has played a role in the coming provincial elections.

Border Issues

2009-01-09T16:38:00.009Z

Last Thursday I went to visit Iraq to see Najaf and Kerbala during the first 10 days of Muharram, a mourning period for millions of Shia across the world who commomorate the death of Imam Hussain.

The first shock came at the Iraqi-Iranian border crossing in Mehran. The Iranian official who was meant to check our bags was like a little girl at a sweet shop. "I'll have that one, that one, no not that one...and yes that one". At first I thought she was joking but when I didn't see her smile I put the bags she pointed to on the scanner belt. I went with a group of friends and only 4 out of 11 bags were scanned.

We had already arranged with the Iraqi officials on the other side but I was left behind and when I went around the queue to catch up with the group I could hear someone shout "Stop...stop!" in Arabic. I turned around slightly and saw a skinny US soldier wearing dark sunglasses. I pretended not to notice him but he quickly ran ahead of me and stopped me just before I could reach the Iraqi guard. When he spoke broken Iraqi with me I said "It's okay you can speak English". He sighed and said "Ex-see-cuse mee meester...ve sayyed to you es-stooop...vyy you did e-noot es-stoop".

I couldn't believe it when I heard his hardcore Farsi accent. He was Iranian, wearing US Army uniform, unarmed, standing less than 20 feet away from the last official Iranian border guard and was in charge of checking passports. I would have assumed he was an Iranian-American but the dark sunglasses (in winter) and the fact that he was the only 'American' unarmed baffled me. He took me to a cabin where I was searched by the real Americans and had my fingerprints and picture taken. The first thing I did when I got out was ask one of the Iraqi policemen what the hell was an Iranian doing on this side of the border. He looked over his shoulder and said "Mujahadeen" (MKO).

The real shock came when I realised not a single bag was checked by either the Iraqi or American soldiers. No scanners, no dogs, no nothing. The driver who took us to Najaf was not worried when I jokingly told him I could have smuggled a bomb from Iran. He laughed "A petty bomb? They have factories inside Iraq that make them!".

It was as if the Iranians, Iraqis and Americans couldn't care less what enters Iraq through the border. If this is what happens in one of the busiest official borders in Iraq I dread to think what goes on in the desert.

Farewell Kiss

2008-12-21T14:05:00.002Z

Rarely will you find an Iraqi who has not been on the receiving end of a flying shoe or slipper, at some point or another during their childhood, as punishment for mischievous behaviour. The person throwing the slipper/shoe is usually the mother, and if shoe-throwing were an Olympic event Iraq would be guaranteed a Gold medal every 4 years. Shoe-throwing is a serious insult in Iraqi culture because the shoe is the lowest thing on the ground and conversely when you want to show respect to an Iraqi you say "on my head".

This isn't the first time a high ranking official has been insulted in this way. Sadrists in Najaf threw shoes at Iyad Allawi when he visited the holy shrine 3 years ago because he went to war with the Mehdi Army. Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim also received similar treatment in Iran in 1999. His Iranian security guards were baffled when angry Sadrists pelted him with shoes in Qum forcing him to cancel a scheduled speech on the death of Moqtada's father. Neither incident caused as much fuss as the latest attack, and for good reason. This time it was the US President.

$10 million in cash, men offering their own daughters, and becoming famous with a prosperous future that pays. That is the prize up for grabs for anyone willing to act like a complete idiot in the Arab and Muslim world. To be honest I did not think much of the shoe-throwing per se. Yes it was a very stupid thing to do, but I was not going to lose sleep over an incident which has a casualty figure of 0. What is even more important is what happened after the incident because it says a lot about almost everything that has gone wrong in that part of the world.

What I am still trying to digest is the disgusting response from across the Arab and Muslim world. In Iraq it was the usual players who were making noise and I apologise in advance for the next sentence which is going to be sectarian. The Shia slum-dwellers who support Sadr and the Sunnis who have had their lives turned upside down since Saddam's early and unnatural demise where the two major groups showing support for Muntadhar al-Zaidi. In Kurdistan there was no real jubilation at the very unprofessional and childish behaviour. Why? Because my sectarian sentence is true.

Outside Iraq in the wider Arab and Muslim world the response has been astonishing. I am not the type of person who is unfamiliar with the backward ways of that part of the world but even I was surprised at the prevailing attitude. Edward Said would probably turn in his grave if he hears me use "that part of the world" in such a derogatory manner but I am not going to window-dress or sugar-coat here. They are backward and most of the inhabitants seem to take up a specific geographical area on this planet. I made a vow to myself to limit my political correctness as much as I could when I first started this blog and I am not about to break that promise. I will only ever start being diplomatic one day if it's in my job description.

Before anyone bothers to send me hate mail accusing me of being a self-hating Arab Muslim I would like to put my hands up now and say guilty as charged. I hate the Arab and Muslim world and I hate a lot of the things they stand for.

In Egypt a man offered his virgin daughter to fulfill the desires of this Iraqi "hero". There is nothing in the Arab world that comes before a man's honour. The wife, the sister, the mother and the daughter are the most precious things in the Arab world so you Westerners can imagine how valuable this "gift" is. Of course when I say they are the most precious things in the Arab world that does not mean they cannot (double negative) be regarded as mere objects or a commodity that can be given in exchange for other commodities.

In Jordan and Palestine Zaidi was hailed as a hero, but that is not so surprising because the list of people regarded as heros over there include the likes of Saddam, Uday, Zarqawi and Bin Laden.

A Saudi Arabian man offered $10 million for the shoes so that the next time his obese friends come over to eat a camel he can point at the shoes and say, while still chewing on camel fat, "these were the shoes that were thrown at Bush". That phrase would elevate his standing in society to degrees unthinkable in the Western world. The Saudi would need to spend $50 million on property, cars, yachts and private jets to achieve the same results, so from his point of view $10 million is a decent investment.

The real irony in this case is that it was only because of what Bush did in 2003 that gave people like Zaidi the opportunity to express their 'opinions' in this way. This brave Iraqi hero could not have shown the world the extent of his 'honour' and national 'pride' if it wasn't for the evil infidel Bush who forced Saddam to live in a rat-hole not even worthy of rabid rats.

Status Of Forces Agreement

2008-12-07T03:29:00.009Z

Prime Minister Maliki's Chief of Staff, Dr Tarik Najem Abdullah, was a guest speaker at an event organised by the Muslim Youth Association. The event took place on Saturday in the Dar al-Islam Foundation in north-west London. The issue was of course the SOFA and the future of Iraq.

Abdullah went into detail regarding what the SOFA really means for Iraq and how it was dealt with. He spoke with a certain degree of equanimity, and considering this is such a highly controversial subject, I found it both refreshing and impressive.

He started by emphasising the fact that everyone was in on the details of the negotiations, both groups inside the government and also those outside. After every round of negotiations all the different political groups were briefed on the developments. Even before the cabinet agreed to sign the agreement Maliki had a meeting with all the political heads in Iraq, and no one, except the Sadrists, opposed the final agreement. There were differences of opinion on some aspects of the SOFA with some groups but the Sadrists refused to accept it outright.

"The Iraqi government had a choice", he said, "between asking the US forces to stay in Iraq for one more year, under the current circumstances, or start negotiating the SOFA". He also told the audience to bear in mind that any military force stationed in any other country in the world would need to have some sort of agreement with the local government otherwise nothing would work. Signing the SOFA was in the best interest of Iraq.

The negotiations reached an impasse in June 2008, when Maliki voiced his concerns over Iraqi sovereignty and again when negotiations officially ended in October 2008, when there were still 155 points that the Iraqis could not agree on with the Americans. While 90 of these revolved around the use of language, some of the others infringed Iraq's sovereignty. Talks were revived again in early November and in the revised version, which according to Abdullah was a victory for Iraq, the Americans were forced to compromise on many issues. Some issues were dealt with and agreed on just two days before the deal was approved by the Iraqi cabinet.

The major issues, such as prosecution of US forces or contractors in Iraqi courts ended up being in the favour of the Iraqis. Also the Iraqi forces are allowed to search the Americans but the Americans are not allowed to search or detain without the approval of an Iraqi Judge. There will also not be a single permanent US military-base in Iraq.

Abdullah mentioned on more than one occasion that the Iraqi negotiators managed to strike a deal with the Americans that is unique and nothing like any SOFA the Americans have around the world with over 80 other countries. He said "We should be proud of the negotiators". The German Ambassador in Baghdad was so impressed by the deal he told the Iraqis "What you have managed to get, we could only have dreamed of".

Now it seems Britain will also have to sign a SOFA with Iraq and I think someone should remind them, just in case they forget, to sign it with the Government of Iraq and not the militias.

What Next? Iraq & SIIC

2008-11-30T02:15:00.008Z

18 months ago, when news reached the party stalwarts of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim may not be around for much longer there was a silent and bloodless coup d’état that was headed by his son Ammar al-Hakim with the backing of Adel Abdul Mehdi. A deal was struck between the two that while Ammar may be the official head and symbolic leader after the imminent death of his father, any decision made would have to go through Abdul Mehdi.

Since the spring of 2007 Ammar has been effectively running SIIC, and he stepped down from his previous position as Secretary General of the Al-Hakim Foundation (Al-Mehrab Martyr Foundation) and appointed Hussain al-Hakim, and then Hassan al-Hakim, both cousins, to run the multi-million dollar welfare institution in his stead.

Although Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is a workaholic and insists on 7am meetings to make most of the day, he is considered, even by some of his friends and family, as being old-fashioned and boring. Ammar on the other hand is a prolific public speaker and more flamboyant. His swagger, pompous bodyguards and flashy convoys, which include a bullet-proof BMW X5, has earned him the nickname “Uday" al-Hakim, a phrase I seem to be hearing more often when I am in Iraq. This summer I inadvertently insulted a taxi driver by laughing after he told me with absolute conviction “Ammar has used cash to buy half the land in Najaf”.

In the emergency meeting that was held in Baghdad to discuss the future of SIIC, Abdul Mehdi proposed the idea of a committee, which he will head, that will help Ammar lead the party. When the senior officials present were asked for their opinions the awkward moment of silence that followed was deafening. No one opposed the idea of Ammar leading but it was obvious not all of the nervous-looking officials seemed too keen either.

Abdul Mehdi, although intellectually superior to Ammar and decades his senior, has one major disadvantage; his surname is not Hakim. Abdul Mehdi threw his weight behind Ammar for insurance purposes; to guarantee seeing off any challenge from other senior SIIC officials.

Things will be further complicated if, or when, Abdul Mehdi becomes the new Prime Minister next year. Officially, even though premier of Iraq, he will be outranked in his own party by the 38-year-old Ammar. Abdul Mehdi was just one vote away from becoming Prime Minister back in December 2005, however all the Sadrist MP's voted for Ibrahim al-Ja'fari who won 64-63 and then immediately froze my fathers murder case, in which Sadr is chief suspect. It seems likely Abdul Mehdi will take over from Maliki, unless Da'wa fight hard for the premiership.

The way things run inside the Supreme Council is similar to how democracy works in Iran. “We have committees and sub-committees, we have elections and decisions are made by all”, a veteran SIIC official told me earlier this year “But if Hakim says ‘Yes’, no one will dare to say no”. A paradox even he found funny.

Things may be a little more democratic inside SIIC if Ammar is leader but if no one had the steel to challenge him in the meeting then it doesn’t seem likely things will change dramatically once the younger Hakim takes one step higher up the pyramid. For now though, Ammar has had to take a step back as his fathers treatment in Iran has been extremely successful, but he is still in prime position to make the transition quick and smooth.

With Adel Abdul Mehdi leading Iraq, and assuming he remains loyal, the rising star Ammar al-Hakim will certainly become even more influential and powerful. It remains to be seen what exactly this will mean for Baghdad, some expect him to be invaluable when it comes to dealing with Iran, where he lived and studied, but it is that very reason that seems to be worrying others.

Bush, Saddam & Obama

2008-11-06T00:19:00.007Z

I had always wanted McCain to win the presidential elections even though everyone around me had made me feel that would be asking for too much. It was Biden's Iraqis-are-uncivilized-monsters plan, Obama's constant why-the-hell-should-we-help-the-Iraqis-anymore line and the dodgy characters in Obama's life that had made me flinch everytime I thought about the Obama-Biden team planning their next country split up and concrete-wall building crusade in the White House.

McCain wanted the troops to leave Iraq and return home with honour, dignity and with victory. Obama wants the troops to leave Iraq, period. I do not know if this is what Obama genuinely believes to the best option or he was simply being pragmatic and adopted this stance to win the favour of the Americans who desperately wanted their troops home as soon as possible.

I tried my best to stay up all night to watch the results but somehow I managed to fall asleep about a 1/3 of the way through, and even then I remember it wasn't looking so good for the Republicans. When I woke up I realised it was Obama. At first I was upset but then for some strange reason, a verse in the Quran started to play (on repeat mode) in my head. It was the last part of verse 30, chapter 8, Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War):

"...They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah." [Quran 8:30]

With a smile I saw the bigger picture. I realised that if Obama was 8 years older and had won the Presidential elections 8 years ago, Saddam would not only have still been in power, but Obama would probably have been in one of Saddam's Presidential Palaces drinking coffee with the butcher as part of his terrorist out-reach programe for the Middle East. George Bush won the 2000 elections for a reason. Similarly to how God sent Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, God had guided Bush to deliver the Iraqi people from Saddam. Saddam planned, Obama is planning, but God is the best of planners. Bush won, Saddams dead and the rest is just details.

Worth it?

2008-10-30T14:40:00.008Z

I was looking back at my old e-mails the other day and stumbled across an e-mail from Trudy Rubin that was sent almost 5 years ago. I was surprised because the e-mail was "read" but it was the first time I had seen it. She had kindly sent me the notes of an interview with my father which I am publishing here with her permission.

I had an argument with my father about the war shortly before he left London for the last time. Over lunch I told him that I was planning to attend the anti-war march with some friends to protest the US invasion of Iraq. He was shocked at first, then said "You can go if you want, but you don't know the meaning of Saddam Hussein". He then went on to explain who Saddam really was and how important it was for someone, anyone, to do something about him. I remember that day very well, because he spoke so much he didn't even have his lunch and because I was still not convinced and took to the streets of London to protest. The lives that would be lost could not possibly be worth a post-Saddam Iraq.

After my fathers death I realised I was indeed ignorant of Saddam so I read a lot more about Iraq's Saddam-era history to learn about the true horrors of Iraq under Saddam. The Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf war, Anfal campaign, the scholar killing-spree, Uday, Qusay, '91 intifada e.t.c and it wasn't long before I realised anything short of a nuclear strike on Iraq would still have been worth it. It seems cruel to say that it was worth all those people who were killed, but their blood was a price Iraq paid to get rid of Saddam. Blood that was willingly given or unwillingly taken. No one chooses who goes and who stays. God, fate, destiny, call it what you like.

April 1, 2003
Sayid Majid al Khoei [speaking by satellite phone from a US base outside Najaf]

We are very near Najaf. Inshallah we will go there soon.
It is not true that the Shia are reluctant (to welcome the Americans). From the South till our towns, everyone in the tribes is waiting for the right time to cooperate and show their reaction.

Q: Why aren't they cooperating yet?
A: The people inside - some have cooperated. But they are still under the control of the Baath and the Fedayeen. My town, there is a tight curfew, house arrest, no one can go out, anyone would be shot. That is why it is still difficult for those inside.

In Um Qasr and free areas, they are happy but worried. Not as happy as in '91, they are still not sure (about the future) until the US finishes the job in Baghdad. Once (betrayal) was enough for us. We don't know if the US will leave us alone to face Saddam Hussein again.

If the allies surround Baghdad and show that Saddam is finished...they don't need to really finish (kill) him, but if the people see that the allies won't let him go.

Nobody is allowed to go to the shrine. There is no other way but to invade the city, even if it damages the shrine, the allies must take Najaf soon.

What would make me personally angry, if Saddam's army damages the shrine and then blames the US army. The allies are being very careful to shoot around the holy places. People know that Saddam's men shot the shrine in '91, and that in '91 the allies broke many things but not the Holy Shrines.

If the US finishes the fedayeen, then Najafis can take responsibility to run the city again. If the city is in the hands of the people, there might be spies for Saddam there, but everyone will point out who is fedayeen and mukhabarat.

There are many ways to cooperate (with the allies). We are independent, we came ourselves. It was difficult.

Q: Should there be an (allied) military government?
A: It is too soon to judge. We must wait to see how Iraqis think. The Iraqi opposition sees things totally different from people inside Iraq. The government should belong to them (insiders) not the opposition. They will decide how to build a government. People are still waiting, if Saddam is finished and people take the government things will change.

People won't turn against the Americans. We had too many wars made by Saddam Hussein, one war for eight years, one for seven months. They won't turn against the Americans.

In each city, if people die (in this war), it is hard to say who they will blame. Unfortunately, there is no other choice.

I personally am ready to be killed in order to finish the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Yes, I can trust the Americans. Everyone knows the situation is entirely different than in '91. In '91, the Americans came to liberate Kuwait, not to change the regime. Now Iraqis gave details about Saddam to the Americans. People who demonstrate (against the war, around the world) don't know the meaning of Saddam.

This time the Americans came and said they would finish this. They have sent many messages. I can't speak for the Iraqi people. They are waiting because they don't trust exactly. Tribal leaders say 'we will help, but this is a political game, we will help if we are sure'.

It is true that in Nasiriya Ali Hassan Majid with his own hand shot tribal leaders. People are still scared.

We tell them "Don't rise up in these days.
"Don't fight in the town against the allies.

"Don't go out."

Sayid Majid tells me he must go, and we agree to talk again in a few days.

Eagle Eye

2008-10-26T21:06:00.010Z

Eagle Eye is a recent Hollywood movie that was released in the UK last week. It is your typical high-tech, fast-paced, action packed American movie. The film revolves around a DoD computer system that has gone terribly wrong. The AI system wants to murder almost every member of the executive in the US government because the President disregarded the recommendation to "abort mission" for the assassination of a terrorist that is targeted in the first few minutes of the movie.

The computer system chooses two civilians (Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan) to help it carry out mass-murder. Only the Defence Secretary is spared because he agreed with the recommendation to abort the mission. The shocking part of the film is that the terrorist (Fahim Fazli, pictured) is named "Majid al-Khoei". Although the IMDb cites the name as "Al Kohei" the name that is shown on the computer screen in the movie is clearly "MAJID AL-KHOEI".

What is even more shocking is that no one in a $80 million budget film bothered to use Google to check whether using my fathers name for a terrorist would be appropriate. I do not expect anyone of them to go out of their way to thoroughly research a proposed name but even a 20-second glance at the google results would have shown them that "Majid al-Khoei" was a moderate philanthropist who was slain by terrorists in a cold-blooded attack. Anyone with self-respect or decency would have then raised an eyebrow.

Error, misjudgement, lack of due diligence or a sly and cunning attack on a dead man, whatever it is, I want to get to the bottom of this and find out which fool decided to be a smart-ass and throw in a well-known and respected name to the writers/producers.

I tried to transcribe parts of the first few minutes of the film:

[Suspected terrorist is travelling in a 3 car convoy and is being closely-watched by US forces]

Defence Secretary: How tell me you spotted the beard in the middle of a god-damn sand storm? Is it really him?
Voice: We're confirming that now
Technician: Sir, audio is coming now
Voice: Verifying voice pattern now
Voice: Four males, speaking in a Rashadi dialect, consistent with our intel on al-Khoei
Technician: Sir its just coming up.

["37% Probable Match…Majid al-Khoei" shown on computer]

...

[Another picture is taken of the suspected terrorist as he leaves his car and "51% match Majid al-Khoei" is shown on the computer, which recommends abort mission]

...

[President calls]
Defence Secretary: Mr President, we have a 51% identity match on Majid al-Khoei, the bad news is that there's some possibility he's at a funeral, you should also be aware we have an abort recommendation, but the Joint Chiefs are urging the go.

...

President: And if it is al-Khoei, and he walks, I'm putting our people at risk, you have a go.
Defence Secretary: Thank you Mr President.
Joint Chief of Staff: We're weapons hot!
Technician: We have weapons hot!

[A missile is fired at the suspected target and the people attending the funeral are killed]

Al-Arabiya

2008-10-10T02:51:00.006+01:00

As one of the anonymous commentators has pointed out, the website of Al-Arabiya, the Saudi Arabian satellite channel, has been hacked. Al-Arabiya has not stooped down to the (very low) standards of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera but it has broadcast its fair share of sectarian-laced reports and anti-Shia rhetoric, and thus was the target of Shia hackers. No Iranian flag-painted faces this time but a burning flag of Israel instead of a torn one.

According to Zeinobia it was re-hacked by the Saudi's but I still get the same message on the Al-Arabiya website. Let the games begin, sorry, I mean continue.

www.alarabiya.net

Iraqi Doctors: Armed & Dangerous

2008-10-03T00:51:00.004+01:00

In their infitie wisdom, the Iraqi government has decided that Iraqi doctors should be allowed "to carry one weapon" in order to defend themselves.

I don't think anyone has a problem with people who want to defend themselves per se, but I think this is a stupid idea because not only are these people not used to carrying weapons but because they have spent most of their lives trying to save peoples lives, and now they are supposed to be prepared to start taking them.

I remember the first time I carried a concealed weapon in Iraq it was a really strange feeling for me, I knew it was normal to be armed, even some taxi drivers have guns, but the gun felt 'heavy'. Half the time it felt more like a burden rather than something that is there to protect me, even though I wouldn't have minded using it to shoot someone trying to kill or kidnap me. I can't imagine how 'heavy' a gun would feel in the hands of a doctor.

So what happens if the doctor shoots and the terrorist will die if no one gives him medical attention? Does the doctor have a duty to try and help him stay alive? It would be interesting to see exactly how many doctors will start walking around Baghdad with a pistol stuffed into their belt, because many will refuse outright to carry something that is used to kill and maime.

Sabeeh, a doctor in Tal A'far says "I think it will not be of help because I do not know how to shoot, and have never used a gun. I don't think I will carry a weapon.". Its also weird that they have decided to pass this law after 5 years of chaos and when there has been a dramatic improvement in security. Why? And why now?

Sunni Websites Hacked

2008-10-01T07:11:00.009+01:00

Following the attack on hundreds of Shia websites, some Iranian Shia decided to pay back in kind by hacking many of the most visited Sunni websites. www.alsunnah.com, www.alburhan.net, and www.alsrdaab.com were just some of the sites targeted. A picture of the 'Persian Gulf', a face painted with the Iranian flag and an Israeli flag torn in two come up as the homepage for these sites. The hacking was justified by using part of a verse from the Quran [2:194]

"...And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you..."

Some sites however show a picture of two hands interlocked with the phrase "Oh Muslims, Unite Unite" with a tongue-in-cheek message at the bottom that reads "Because of Eid-el-Fetr , some of your sites will be returned to you in the next 24 hours".

The Shia hackers targeted hundreds of sites that had nothing to do with the earlier attack on Shia sites. These two extremist groups will continue taking cheap shots at one another and 'pathetic' isn't even the right word to describe these attacks.

I was shocked to learn that Makerem Shirazi, a Grand Ayatollah based in Qum met and praised the "Ashyaneh" group responsible for this retaliatory attack. The meeting will also come as a shock to those conspiracy theorists who cried "divide and conquer" when they first heard about the attack, which they thought was the work of Jews trying to cause trouble between the Shia and Sunnis (who lived happily side by side for a thousands years before the Jews came along and forced them to kill each other).

Comment Moderation

2008-09-25T20:11:00.005+01:00

Unfortunately not everyone has good intentions when it comes to posting comments on my blog. Some genuinely criticize and question me and I welcome it because it is always good to have an open and healthy discussion on any issue. So to those people, who are the vast majority, nothing here will change. But the problem starts when people obsess over things that only exist in their imagination. As many of you have noticed, these people are almost always "anonymous" and believe I am an American/British/Israeli (delete as appropriate) agent on a mission to destroy the real Islam.

I don't know what drives them to go on their arm-chair jihad every now and again. It could be jealousy, cowardice, ignorance or a mixture of all three but one thing is for certain, the reason they never post under their real names or level any of these accusations face to face is because they know defamation is a serious crime and so they try to score a few points on cyber-space to make themselves feel better. I have decided to moderate comments because it will give them a chance to do something more constructive in their lives instead of using this blog as a platform to spread whatever it is they feel so obliged to spread.

I feel sorry for these people who are probably miserably lonely with no lives of their own (that’s why they are so obsessed with other individuals) and will take full advantage of this God-given opportunity in Ramadhan to pray they get some help.

God Bless, Cheers and Shalom.

Anti-Shia Hackers

2008-09-19T00:14:00.014+01:00

Yesterday several Shia websites, including Sistani's official website www.sistani.org, were hacked by an extremist Sunni group who call themselves Group XP.

www.sistani.net was also hacked but now it redirects to www.al-sistani.ir which seems to be working properly. www.al-shia.com was also hacked, all the websites show the same message. The website of the "Zoroastrian Safavid" has been hacked with the "help of Allah". The word "Shia" isn't even used once, instead they are referred to as rejectionists, descendants of Ibn al-Alqami, Zoroastrians and "sons of the Persians".

It is the typical language used by Salafis who do not consider Shias within the realm of Islam. They have posted a youtube video which begins with Bill Maher's mockery of Sistani and then cuts to an audio of Sistani's (and Khoei's) fatwas on sex.

www.sistani.org

Update: It seems the Salafis attacked hundreds of Shia sites, although many of them are up and running again.

The Hate Triangle

2008-09-18T03:15:00.023+01:00

There was no real outrage in July this year when the Iraqi President shook hands with the Israeli Defence Minister. In many parts of the world, a handshake between a President and Israeli Minister would be seen as nothing more than a formality, but bear in mind Iraq is located in a backward part of the world and so Talabani's office had to ‘justify’ the meeting with Barak so that backward people would not have a heart attack and drop dead. The excuse given by his office was that Talabani went to the Socialist International meeting in Athens as a leader of his PUK party, not as President. On paper

Iraq

is still at war with

Israel

but no one in Baghdad dared accuse the Iraqi President of treason. Some Islamist MP’s were angry but the reaction was nothing like we have seen with Alusi.

When Mithal al-Alusi decided to attend a conference aimed at tackling terrorism in

Israel

the world came crashing down on his head. His immunity was stripped, he was banned from travelling and barred from attending sessions in parliament and to top it all off he was accused of being an Israeli agent.

MP's are outraged because

Israel

is regarded as a "historic enemy". So let us talk history. Let us compare

Israel

with

Iran

.

In 1948

Israel

did not threaten

Iraq

, but

Iraq

was the one that declared war on

Israel

. In 1982

Iraq

offered

Iran

an olive-branch, but

Iran

turned it down and was determined to drag the war for 6 more years. In 1991, despite

Israel

not being involved in the Gulf War,

Iraq

attacked

Israel

but

Israel

did not even retaliate. After the fall of Saddam

in 2003 Iraq

did not threaten

Iran

, but

Iran

has spent the last 5 years (and hundreds of millions of dollars) trying to destroy

Iraq

Israel

’s last hostile attack against

Iraq

was the 1981 air strike that destroyed Osirak, and that in itself should be seen as a favour to humanity.

So which country has done more harm to

Iraq

Israel

Iran

Israel

has an impressive track record when it comes to fighting terrorism and

Iraq

can learn a lot from their experience.

Israel

is surrounded by enemies, like

Iraq

is today, but has managed to survive and prosper.

The Iraqi parliament has ignored all the above and chosen to cling on to a 39-year old Ba'athist law and punish anyone who breaks it.

Alusi is one man trying to help

Iraq

and is a thorn in the eyes of those who are trying to destroy

. He took part in an international attempt to help rid this world of the cancer (terrorism) that has plagued

Iraq

and the region for over 1,000 years. Since after the birth of Islam till today this cancer has taken many shapes, forms and names, but it has been the Iraqi people that have always suffered.

With Iranian agents and Arab mujahideen breeding like cockroaches in

Iraq

I am surprised Alusi has managed to make it this far in the first place. I salute Alusi for his courage. The sad reality is that

Iraq

is not ready for a man like him. In 20 years time someone like Alusi could be Prime Minister, but for now he is simply a maverick MP who refuses to follow everyone like sheep.

The Light

2008-09-03T22:51:00.004+01:00

On Saturday I spent over 30 minutes waiting by the roadside for a taxi in the usually crowded and busy Muthana street in Najaf. After 10 minutes I began to worry, as far as I could see only 3 shops in the entire street were open, only a handful of other pedestrians were walking and I saw more donkey-drawn carts than cars. My phones battery was dead and so I couldn't call anyone to ask if something had happened. After half an hour I finally managed to flag down a car. Just as I was about to ask him if he knew what was going on I looked at my watch and it hit me instantly. From 10-11pm almost everyone in Najaf (and the rest of Iraq) tunes in to MBC 4 to watch the Turkish drama series Gümüs, which has been dubbed in Arabic and titled Noor.

Iraq went into an unofficial 3-day mourning when Muhanned, the co-star of the series, was stabbed and left for dead in one of the last episodes. Ihlamurlar Altinda, the other Turkish drama that is dubbed and titled Sanawat al-Dhiya' is also religiously followed by millions of Arabs across the globe.

I find it very refreshing to see that Iraqis, who have gone through hell and back themselves, are able to show so much emotion towards a series like this. In coffee shops locals analyse the consequences of Maliki going to war with the Sons of Iraq ('sahwa') and then discuss, with equal vigour, whether or not Noor really deserves to get back with Muhanned. It brings some sense of normality in this otherwise not so normal country.

Many people who can only afford to switch on their generators for a few hours a day sacrifice one hour of electricity in the afternoon/evening and bear the heat just so they can watch Noor later at night. Anyone who was unfortunate enough to miss an episode could easily be filled in the next day by their local grocer, tailor, or baker.

Hawza students in Najaf, when not debating philosophy, history or law, were consumed by Noor and her never-ending mood swings. An MP in Baghdad said even the Green Zone was not immune from the Noor phenomena that swept the country. Now that the marathon series has come to an end, maybe the politicians can get back to running the country.

Casual Converstaion

2008-08-27T20:39:00.006+01:00

A friend of mine just recently came back to Iraq and when I asked him about his journey from Baghdad to Najaf he spoke of a very interesting conversation he had with the driver. As he got into the car the driver played some Shia religious songs and as soon as he reached the outskirts of Baghdad he switched it to a pro-Moqtada tape.

One question led to another and it turned out the driver was an ex-commander of the Mehdi Army responsible for over 40 rebels in Baghdad. He spoke about the Mehdi Army and of the hard times Baghdadis went through during the "civil war". Regarding the Mehdi Army he said they could be grouped into three different categories:

1. The "real" Mehdi Army. Any Shia who fights to protect his home and his neighbourhood from the Sunni insurgents. No one needs an identity card to prove himself worthy, any Shia who fights against the Sunnis is considered part of this army. They were advised by and in constant contact with the political Sadrists. Moqtada would occasionally pay them surprise visists to encourage them and increase morale amongst their ranks.

2. The "criminal" Mehdi Army. Many youths enjoyed the power and privileges that came with joining the Mehdi Army and used them in order to steal, kidnap and kill for the sake of money. The 'real' Mehdi Army would only discipline them if they committed crimes against fellow Shia. Moqtada is "innocent" of these people who use his name to further their personal agendas.

3. The "Iranian" Mehdi Army. He joined them and left after only 3 weeks because he "hated" them. They could do what they pleased with no checks and balances in place. Many cells operated unilaterally with no communication or coordination with the 'real' Mehdi Army and they would bypass the quasi-military chain of command that was in place. They claimed they were in constant contact with Moqtada's office in Najaf.

One of the many tragic stories he narrated was how his 16 year old nephew was kidnapped by the Sunni insurgents in his neighbourhood. After finding out who the kidnappers were he used his position in the Mehdi Army to take over a police checkpoint in the area and then kidnapped the 19 year old nephew of the ringleader of the Sunni gang.

He called and told the Sunni he had his nephew and that if he ever wanted to see him alive again he had to release his nephew immediately. They said they were sorry but they had just executed the 16 year old kid. He hung up, cocked his pistol and shot dead the 19 year old boy. He felt no closure, no relief, no regret, nothing. Just something that had to be done. Two more innocent lives lost to the Shia-Sunni sectarian war that once plagued Baghdad and the rest of Iraq.

Tackling Kirkuk

2008-08-23T23:01:00.011+01:00

Kirkuk was founded some 4,500 years ago by the Hurrians, it was then conquered by the Assyrians, then it was overrun by the Iranians, then by the Turks, then the Arabs, and now it is part of Iraq. Kurds and Assyrians have lived there since time immemorial and Arabs and Turkmen have also lived there for centuries... So who does Kirkuk belong to? Every time I think about this question the words of Orlando Bloom (Kingdom of Heaven) come to mind:

"What is Jerusalem? Your [Christian] holy places lie over the Jewish temple that the Romans pulled down. The Muslim places of worship lie over yours. Which is more holy?...The Wall? The Mosque? The Sepulchre? Who has claim? No one has claim…All have claim!".

So what to do with a city that can rightfully be 'claimed' by more than 3 large ethnic groups? Thankfully the Mehdi Army militiamen have gone back to petty crime, brick-laying, garbage cleaning e.t.c and the insurgency in Iraq is in the last throes, this time its for real and not even the democrats or al-Qaida can deny it. That leaves everyone else in Iraq with the chance to complain about the electricity or heat, and of course the future of Kirkuk.

The issue shouldn't revolve around "historical claim" or "demographics", because on those grounds Iraq could annex Kuwait (again) and send its armed forces to south-western Iran to turn Khuzistan (Arabistan) into the 20th province. Even though many tribes in both Kuwait and Ahwaz have historically always been part of those in Basra they live in separate countries, and that is tough luck for Iraq. A large chunk of an oil-rich region was simply taken away from Iraq and given to a ruling family (al-Sabahs). When there is a ceremony on the other side of the river many tribesmen in both Basra and Ahwaz casually (and illegally) cross over to take part. For them the 'border' is nothing more than an inconvenience.

The problem with Kirkuk is that no one is willing to compromise. Its not just about the labeling of the city as 'Kurdish' or 'Turkmen' or even whose ancestors historically lived there first. The issue of Kirkuk revolves around oil...all one million barrels of it that is pumped out every day.

The Kurds say thousands of Arab families relocated there will negatively impact the elections, the Turkmen say they don't want to be administered by the Kurds (Turks control Kurdish land in Turkey and they don't want the reverse to happen in Iraq) and the Arabs want to be part of the 'Arab nation'.

A census/referendum would have been something the Kurds would have gladly accepted 40 or 50 years ago, but bar splitting up the city along ethnic lines (as the rest of Iraq is starting to get in shape there must be hundreds of tones of redundant concrete slabs) and giving each ethnic group a slice of the pie I can't see a solution for Kirkuk in the short-run and I pray things do not get out of hand, because if they did...well let's not even go there.

Sha'baniya

2008-08-17T17:47:00.016+01:00

Yesterday I attended the festival for one of the 111 Shia holidays in Iraq because I don't get the opporunity to visit Kerbala on the 15th Sha'ban every year (this year it coincided with 16th August). The 80km journey from Najaf to Kerbala took an excruciating 4 hours to complete. You don't need to be a boffin to work out that means an average speed of 20km/h. I wouldn't normally have been able to cope with that when the temperature drives you mad and there is no A/C but everytime I look out of the window I see people walking on foot to Kerbala and think to myself if these people can walk for days on end in this heat the least I can do is sit and bear the journey in a bus.

People walk from Najaf 3 to 4 days in advance to reach Kerbala by the 15th, but tens of thousands more walk much further from cities like Nassiriya and Basra. The occasion is the birthday of the 12th Imam, Mohammed al-Mehdi and every year (since 2003) millions flock to the city of Kerbala to celebrate.

There are small mosques built along all the highways in southern Iraq for the sole purpose of catering for the needs of pilgrims who travel to cities like Najaf, Kerbala and Baghdad to celebrate and mourn the 12 Shia Imams (and Prophet), but even these mosques become obsolete from the sheer numbers and people que up for at least an hour to use the shower facilities before trodding on their way. Where ever you look you can see people clapping, laughing and dancing.

When we reached the outskirts of the city the vast numbers became more apparant and we would spend a good quarter of an hour before we could move a few feet. In Kerbala itself it was a sight I have never seen before, at least 1 million people (Al-Furat put the numbers at 4 million but I think a more accurate estimate would be 1.5 to 2 million) making their way towards the shrines of Imam al-Hussain and his brother Abbas.

Large crowds would clap and dance to the chant ('cha ween al-irhab halyowm') "So where is terrorism today?" and for a moment I actually thought whether the chance of being killed gives these people an incentive to come because everytime I thought about a bomb going off adrenaline would rush through my veins and it just felt extra special because simply by going you are giving the terrorists an open invitation to attack. For the terrorists, killing a large crowd of blasphemous Shia would be something that would merit not only heaven but also an all-you-can-eat open-buffet lunch with the Prophet himself.

In Kerbala, thousands of well-wishers line the streets who want nothing but to serve the people who have come to visit. They offer everything from free food to foot massages and you can even see people standing by the kerb tearing apart cardboard boxes and waving them at passersby to try and cool them (a noble attempt but I can testify it does nothing to reduce the effect of burning in the Mesopotamian desert). Rose water is also sprinkled non-stop at all the people who pass by. On that day everyones name is "pilgrim" and Shias believe serving a visitor of an Imam carries great reward in the hereafter so everyone goes above and beyond the call of duty to make sure the people are comfortable. Even battle-hardened soldiers are afraid to upset the pilgrims, they can be constantly heard saying "sorry" and "please".

The Iraqi security forces deserve great praise for their fantastic conduct and for providing security to the visitors. I don't know how they manage to do it. They search every single person that enters Kerbala and each person is searched more than 5 times before they even reach within a km of the shrine, where there are further searches that are carried out by police, soldiers and even some of the locals who give a helping hand to the security teams. Red lasers could be spotted flashing on the rooftops as sniper teams took position in most of the surrounding buildings. The security forces were on high alert for the fear of both Sunni and Shia terrorists. Last year on this occasion members of the Mehdi Army wreaked havoc near the two holy shrines.

Inside the shrine itself it was like a Tokyo train during rush hour but only this 'train' is a several thousand square foot mosque. I am not exaggerating when I say once you are inside it is extremely difficult to chose where you go, where ever there is a gap ahead, you are immediately pushed there by the people behind. If you decide to break away from the current you have to be physically strong and pray you are met with minimal resistance. The elderly are guarded by their sons who form a human shield around them and the children are carried on the shoulders of their fathers.

All the hotels in Kerbala are pre-booked days in advance and thousands end up sleeping on the street, where ever they can find a place to lay a mattress they do so and if they don't have any they are provided by the locals. Special groups ('mawakib') from various cities compete with one another to provide better services for the visitors but in my honest opinion none are as flamboyant (and generous) as the groups who come from Najaf. The groups bring with them a platform stage that plays religious songs over loudspeakers and provide a live performance by a recitor ('radood'). They raise huge flags that indicate who they are and where they have come from, decorate the stage with large pictures of the Imams and bring with them Harry Potter style cauldrons to cook food (speciality is 'qeema' a lentil/chickpea curry) for thousands of people. Less well-off groups set up small stands and offer water and drinks to quench the thirst of the pilgrims.

When we entered Kerbala thousands of people had already finished and were on their way home and when we left Kerbala (well past midnight) throngs of people continued to arrive to celebrate till the morning. Those who didn't have a car to return would desperately try to find spaces on top of buses or by clinging onto trucks and vans. Most of the taxi drivers would help by refusing to take any money.

Nancy Ajram in Kufa

2008-08-15T17:43:00.006+01:00

Things just arn't the same as they were in Kufa. When the US and Iraqi armies battled Moqtada's army in 2004 most of the people that wandered the streets of Kufa were militiamen. Even in times of peace this town was a bastion for the Mehdi Army. Historically, Kufa has always been the heart of the Sadrists in southern Iraq.

The local police were either sympathetic to the Sadrists, indifferent when it came to their crimes or Sadrists themselves. In many instances the police would man checkpoints together with the militia. If the Sadrists needed police cars or equipment they would either steal them from the police or be given them by the police. Anyone wearing jeans, having the wrong haircut or playing music loud from their cars would be humiliated, taken out of their cars and beaten with sticks in the middle of the street.

Those days are long gone. Now commandos and Rapid Intervention Forces patrol the streets alongside the police, there is no room for the Sadrists to breathe. Yesterday we had to drive over a mile to find a space to park alongside the river bank. The river was lined with families and teenagers laughing, enjoying dinner, drinking tea, playing backgammon or smoking sheesha. Every few minutes a car would drive past with Arabic music on full volume blaring out of the windows and there was not a single Sadrist there to shut them up. Some of the older men even encourage the teenagers, with beads swinging in their hands they shout "hele, hele" as they hear the sweet voice of Nancy Ajram.

8/8/08

2008-08-10T17:13:00.007+01:00

Baghdad looks so beautiful from the sky, the twists and turns of the Tigris, the bridges and inter-twining highways engineered to perfection make this city so special. I'm normally asleep during take-offs and landings but this time I couldn't stop staring. It looks so peaceful it takes a while for it to sink in that this place has been ravaged by war/terrorism for the last 5 years. It's exactly 20 years to the day of the end of the Iraq-Iran war and its hard to imagine what Baghdad could have been without that war, without Saddam and without the Ba'ath Party.

I arrived to Baghdad just before sunset and from inside the plane the city looked busy with cars all over the place but by the time I got out of the airport it was 8:30pm and the city turned into a ghost town. The only other cars I saw, except for the few exceptions, where military or police. The one thing I immediately noticed was there was a lot less soldiers on the street since the last time I was here 4 months ago. This is a good sign of course, less soldiers means a less tense city and every checkpoint from Baghdad to Najaf was manned by polite soldiers who were upbeat and always trying to crack a joke.

I am used to wearing a seat-belt as soon as I enter any car but decided this was a bad idea in Iraq after I was made fun of by every soldier who saw me. I took it off quickly after a soldier just outside the airport said "It's nice to see someone abiding by the law for a change" because abiding by the law in Iraq is a tell-tale sign that you are a stranger. The soldier just laughed and waved us through.

In Latifiya, and after finding out I had come from London, one of the soldiers leaned against the window and with all seriousness said "People run away from Iraq in the summer and you have come here? Don't you know we are crazy here? Here we kill each other for nothing, so what are you doing here?". I said "London is depressing, cold, cloudy and its always raining so I came here to get some sun". His shifty eyes darted around the car for a few seconds and he then waved us through.

The sun is something you cannot hide away from in Iraq, walking in the streets when its 115 degrees F is like walking into a sauna but worse because you are wearing clothes, every breeze is like a blow-dryer on max heat blowing in your face. I just cant understand how those soldiers stand for hours with all that gear on. At midnight the temperature drops just below 100 degrees F and is the only time you can take a shower because the water isn't as hot, it burns for a few seconds but your skin gets used to the heat. There is electricity around 12 hours a day in Najaf and you can pay around 90,000 ID ($75) a month to get an extra 12 hours from large generators. Even with the electricity the heat is unbearable unless you stay cooped up in the same room for 24 hours.

The security forces present in Najaf have dropped by more than half since April and in general the city feels much safer.

"Yapa...Please...Yapa"

2008-07-09T16:49:00.006+01:00

Saddam's Tribe, a docu-drama based on interviews by Raghad Hussein, a.k.a the bitch of Baghdad, a flatering nickname considering she is the daughter of the butcher of Baghdad. Truth be told it isn't a bad film. I discovered Saddam and his henchmen were actually humans with feelings...they sleep, eat, hate and love like other human beings, that was the first shock for me. Raghad, at the time, really believed that the Iraqi people loved her father but whats extraordinary is that today, she still can't see the difference between 'love' and 'fear'. Her father was a lovely man who loved his family (albeit the few murders here and there), his people (not including the hundreds of thousands of them he slaughtered) and his country (which he destroyed).

The film starts in 1995, so thats after the bloody coup d’état, after the Iraq-Iran war, after the Anfal massacre, after the Gulf War and after the genocide in 1991. Yes granted that part was "difficult" for poor Raghooda but not nearly as difficult as fleeing to Jordan and eventually becomming a divorcee. Cue the violins please...

Warning: A few graphic scenes

Torture...

2008-07-03T12:38:00.004+01:00

Am I the only person in the world who thinks torture, in certain circumstances, is ok?

Lets take a hypothetical scenario for example. In reality things are not so black and white, and there is a lot of grey matter, but let us assume;

The security forces have intelligence reports that indicate three massive suicide car-bomb attacks are planned to be executed by three different cells of the same group. The attacks are being planned in places with a high civilian population and the aim is to kill as many innocent people as possible. The security forces manage to capture the ringleaders responsible for one of the three attacks.

The security forces have a choice now:

Option 1: They give the terrorists their "human rights". The terrorists stay silent and the other two attacks go ahead as planned. 'X' number of innocent civilians are killed and 'X times 3' are injured. Al-Qaeda has a victory celebration. The terrorists who killed themselves realise the 72 beautiful virgins in heaven promised by the obese Sheikh, turn out to be 72 sexually frustrated clones of the Sheikh himself.

Option 2: The security forces torture the terrorists. The terrorists eventually crack and give names, places, times e.t.c. The security forces then capture the other two cells and the entire operation flops. '0' amount of people die and '0' are injured. Al-Qaeda goes back to the drawing board and the terrorists would have rather been martyred and gone to heaven than spend the rest of their lives in prison.

If someone knows for an absolute certainty that torture, in and by itself, will lead directly to the prevention of an innocent life being lost, than what is so wrong with torture per se?

MKO: Iraqi Threat or Iraqi Asset?

2008-06-24T16:17:00.010+01:00

For the past week Iraqi MP's have been discussing what to do with the Mujahadeen-e Khalq Organization. In general the Shia Arab MP's see the MKO as a direct threat to Iraq and want them expelled from Iraqi soil because they believe them to be accomplices in Saddam's crimes when the regime brutally suppressed the 1991 popular revolt. Sunni Arab MP's disagree. They claim there is no substantiated evidence that implicates the MKO in any crime and have challenged the Shia MP's (on more than one occasion) to provide them with such evidence. The Sunni MP's also argue that the MKO is an Iraqi asset that should be used as a bargaining chip with the Iranians, to expel the MKO would be a "loss" for Iraq. The points the Sunni's raised in parliament were more or less the same ones I heard from Jamal Al-Deen two months earlier in Baghdad.

Saleh Al-Mutlaq, head of the National Dialogue bloc, said he would actually support having full ties with Iran if they stopped interfering in Iraqi affairs but that is not an option while Iran continues its barrage on Iraqi villages. He said that if any Shia MP's can provide documents proving the MKO has committed crimes against the Iraqi people he would "not only stop talking to them, but would be against them". He pleaded to the speaker that the MKO can be used to further Iraq's interests and that if they lose them, they will come to regret it.

Dhafir Al-Ani, also a Sunni, urged the Shia MP's to "look at the national interests of Iraq before the national interests of foreign countries...Iraq's interest comes first" in a clear reference to their links with Iran. He also challenged the Shia MP's to bring evidence to the table and prove the accusations leveled at the MKO by the Shia blocs.

Hadi Al-Ameri, the head of Badr, swiftly responded and said "I am not at all surprised that Dhafir Al-Ani is defending the MKO, because this is Ba'ath Party tactics". Shia MP's around him beamed and clapped. Ameri refuted the claim and said that the issue of the MKO has nothing to do with Iran. He said what the MKO have done to Iran and to Iranians has nothing to do with the Iraqi parliament, rather they should be punished for "their role in crimes against the Iraqi people".

During Mutleq's speech, a female MP started to interrupt him. Mutleq asked her to stop interrupting and to let him finish. The female MP was having none of it, she continually interrupted Mutleq and started shouting over his voice. Mashhadani who at this point had simply had enough ordered her to stop speaking. "You had your turn, now let him have his". A voice could be heard saying "but he has no right to..." to which Mashhadani shouted back "Of course he has the right, he has the right to say anything he wants, he is an MP just like you".

The MP's who are not polite enough to keep silent while the other is speaking do actually pause briefly for a gasp of air while the other MP is shouting. The most interesting comment actually came from the speaker himself, Mashhadni. When Hadi Al-Ameri had reached boiling point and accused Al-Ani of something (I think it was being a Ba'athist), Mashhadani did not even wait for Al-Ani to reply, instead he shouted "And he [Al-Ani] can accuse you of being a member of the Iranian intelligence".

Hakim's media channel, Al-Forat has been relentless in its efforts to portray the MKO as a terrorist organization that is a threat to Iraq, for a few days it was playing a short 5 second clip over and over again, before the news, after the news, in between programmes e.t.c. it shows the MKO leader Masoud Rajavi and then cuts to an execution video that shows Iraqi civilians standing blindfolded against a wooden pole with their hands tied behind their backs who are shot one by one by an armed man. Hakim's aides have also organized speeches targeted at tribal sheikhs across southern Iraq where the MKO are condemned as a threat to Iraq and its people.

The Iranian state funded Al-Alam channel had interviews with Abbas Al-Bayati, a Shia Turkmen, and Abdul Hadi Zebari, a Sunni Kurd, who both condemned the MKO and said they should be expelled from Iraqi soil.

The Shia dominated cabinet has banned the MKO and anyone caught dealing with them could be tried under Iraq's new anti-terrorism laws. The next step for the Iraqi government is to take control of all the security checkpoints that are currently manned by US soldiers in Camp Ashraf. The irony is that while the MKO is considered as a terrorist organization on US soil they are offered protection and military escorts in Iraq.

On a bad day the Badr militia will storm their camp and arrest/kill MKO members, or even worse smuggle them out to Iran. On a good day they will be ordered to leave Iraq, most likely to Jordan. Either way the fate of the MKO seems doomed.