Saturday, April 21, 2007

My absence .. and Sectarianism

Just to remind my readers that I’m here, I’m posting my response to Henry Porter’s Guardian article ‘When Will Islam Damn the Chlorine Bombers?’ The article is at

I’m tremendously busy at the moment. I should be able to post properly in a couple of weeks' time. In the meantime, here’s my Commentisfree response:

I agree with Porter's general point that there has not been enough official Muslim condemnation of the Salafi nihilist sectarian killers at work in Iraq. This is because the pro-American order in the Arab world (the Sauds and Hashemites and Mubaraks) has been busy rabble-rousing against Iran and the Shia - hoping to defuse anger against imperialism and its puppets by provoking sectarian and ethnic hatreds. And also because, yes, thre is a serious problem in the Muslim (especially Arab) world of Wahhabi intolerance and literalism, and many people do not realise the extent of the danger. Wahhabism appeals in terms of its anti-Westernism, but of course it has previously been America's greatest Arab ally (against Communism, then against revolutionary Iran) in the region. It causes 'fitna' (dissension) among Muslims, and seeks to erase the riches of Islamic history, philosophy, diversity, and mysticism. Its foot soldiers are deracinated and confused - the products of a brutal Middle Eastern modernism.

However, I must say that there are many unofficial Muslim voices condemning the terrorism. I live in a non-Wahhabi Gulf state, and my family are Syrian. (I have plenty of Lebanese and Iraqi friends). People cheer for the anti-American resistance, but bitterly condemn the 'dogs' and 'agents' responsible for violence against civilians. Syrians in particular fear the wild sectarianism that has established itself in Iraq, and worry that the same could happen in their own diverse and divided society.

Not everybody of course. I've heard Syrian villagers and taxi drivers spout the most obscene sectarian hatred. Ethnic and sectarian divisions are rife in the Middle East, and the chaos unleashed by the destruction of Iraq has been fuel for them.

I also disagree with Porter's comment that Western forces would leave Iraq quicker if there was less bloodshed. This is what they tell the Iraqi and Western publics, but it's obviously not true. Why spend so much money building huge permanent bases inside Iraq? Why provoke the sectarian war in the first place, by many steps, not least Negroponte's Central American style death squads made up of Shia and Kurdish militiamen operating in Sunni areas.


Wassim said...

I saw that actually! Here was my post on the article:

"Oh yes it can Mr Porter. If you bother doing any research on the region beyond infantile demogagery and polemical works, you'll find enough has been mentioned and even done on this. Quite recently al Jazeera had hosted a massively publicised discussion between both Sheikh Qaradawi of Egypts Azhar University and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in which they both condemned the violence there. Even Hassan Nasrallah has implored the people in Iraq to stop killing each other.

The apartheid government of South Africa was known to support bombings and terror campaigns against people of different tribes to foment strife, the CIA and Mossad with Saudi funding tried to assassinate the Lebanese Sheikh Fadlallah who they mistakenly believed to be behind the embassy and barracks attacks. The attack failed, and killed almost 200 people. The arrested ringleaders confessed to plans to bomb numerous cafe's, cinemas and shopping centres to aggravate the then raging civil war, it was only because the Saudi's donated vast sums of money in order that there be no retaliation that things quietened down. You must stop imagining that the West is beyond such acts, it is not.

The reason Arabs and Muslims always believe there is a conspiracy against them is usually because there is. "

Abu Kareem said...


I agree with you. Yes there has been many voices speaking against the type of savagery we see in Iraq but I would argue it is not loud enough. We have to collectively say that this type of nihilistic, vile, immoral, purposeless, gratuitous violence against civilians is unacceptable. We have to say it without qualifiers no matter who commits these acts and on whom.

Porter is also wrong by saying that this violence justifies the presence of the Western forces. Their presence is what provides fuel to these fanatics. Remove the fuel and you will remove the fanatics' raison d'etre.

The Fanonite said...

This whole response is unnecessary and in accepting this silly framework for debate, you have already lost argument. "Islam" (an ignorant anthropomorphism) is under no obligation to damn responses to a specific political reality -- namely, occupation -- to which New Labourites like Porter have contributed in their acquiesence. "Islam" should damn chlorine bombers, the day after "christianity" damns its cluster bombers and white phosphorus bombers.