THE SHIITE QUESTION

Inspired by the uprising that led to the fall of the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, Bahrainis rallied (Feb 14) in the streets of Manama. They first faced a brutal crackdown by the regime's security apparatus that caused tens of casualties between dead and injured, before they had been allowed to camp in, and around the Pearl Square at the heart of the capital. They announced their demand of a constitutional monarchy. Foreign Media rushed to the tiny Kingdom to cover another Arab uprising. Headlines rushed as well to the screens and pages of the media around the world, as it did in the case of Tunisia and Egypt, except it was phrased differently. In Egypt and Tunisia, and later in Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and even Yemen, most of the headlines are phrased as "popular uprising" or so. While in Bahrain, it was phrased "Shiite uprising against the Sunni ruling family".
No body cared about the religious background of those who protest across the Arab world, not even in Yemen, where ethnic and religious diversities are in tense. Media kept pressing in labeling the uprising in Bahrain as a Shiite uprising, in no regard to the fact that it was popular, and ignoring that four out of the seven political societies (parties), that were part of the uprising, are secular and cross-sectarian. Some will argue that of the grievances that drove Bahrainis to protest is that there is a policy of discrimination against the Shiites, and it is normal that Shiites will be part of the uprising out of this grievance. Well, it is true, but they will be part of it, the majority of it, but why labeling the uprising as "Shiite uprising" instead of a "popular uprising". If Shiites made up the majority of the protesters, they also make the majority of Bahrainis. 

To understand such enigma, oneself needs first to dig a little deep into history to have a sort of comprehension about the origin of the Shiite religious doctrine.     

    


BRIEF HISTORY

ALI AND THE THRONE OF THE CALIPHATE 

The foundational figure in Shiite history is Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad. After the death of Muhammad, rival claims were put forth for the caliphate. According to Shiite historians, Muhammad designated Ali as his successor, and based on that, all the others who served in this capacity were illegitimate. The "Partisans of Ali," Shi'a 'Ali in the struggle to get 'Ali in the Caliphate and in the civil war that broke out when Ali was finally named Caliph gave the name to the religious schism that divided the Islamic world from the very beginning. The Civil war led to the assassination of Ali himself, in 661 AD, and in process, to the ascending of his rival "Mu'awiyya" to the throne of the Caliphate. And this part of history remained at the cornerstone of Shiite history. Eventually, the Shi'ites would develop a religious doctrine that differs in fundamental respects from orthodox, or Sunni Islam.

HUSSAIN .. PRINCE OF MARTYRS

Under Mu'awiyya, the Umayyads began to publicly decry Ali in religious ceremonies; this was too much for the partisans of Ali, the Shiites, who were concentrated in the Iraqi city of Kufa. When Mu'awiyya died in 680 AD, he was succeeded by his son Yazid. Yazid was a deeply pragmatic and shrewd governor, and, fearing more uprisings in Kufa, sent his general, 'Ubaydu'llah ibn Ziyad, to rule over Kufa with an autocratic and brutal hand. The Kufans sent for Hussain and promised to back him in a bid for the Caliphate and, against all the advice of his friends, Hussain agreed. With a large entourage of private citizens and soldiers, Hussain was intercepted at the Iraqi border by al-Hurr at-Tamimi, who was leading an army of one thousand people. al-Hurr convinced Husayn to not go to Kufa and Hussain soon departed in another direction. al-Hurr followed and Hussain and his entourage entered the plain of Karbala in Iraq and set up camp. A new detachment of Yazid's army appeared under the command of Umar ibn Sa'ad; this army number four thousand men. Umar had been commanded to force Hussain to declare his loyalty to Yazid or not let him leave Karbala. Few days later, on the 10th of "Muharram, the first month in the lunar calendar", and the most significant day on the Shi'ite calendar, Ashura, Umar's and al-Hurr's men, five thousand in all, attacked Hussain's entourage. The latter were soon defeated, and Hussain himself, cradling his dead infant son in his arms, was cut down. At first no soldier wished to kill him, since he was the grandson of Muhammad, but he was soon dispatched. His followers were decapitated, and the women and children were led back to Yazid in chains. The triumphant Umayyads carried back the heads, including Hussain's, on spear points, and Yazid gloated for days over the head of his dead rival, and the incident at Karbala came to a close. And Shi'a as religious sect started to gain form. It is nearly impossible to characterize the importance of Ashura for the Shi'ite mind, since it is so engrained in Shi'ite history, culture, and religion. It is considered as the great tragedy of Shi'ite history, and is celebrated every year since then. The ceremonies were and still are regarded as religious in nature by orthodox Muslims. They brand Shi'a Islam, along with several other variant Muslim sects, as extremists or "Ghulat". In general this label was reserved for Muslims who either believed in some divinity in addition to God or believed that someone after Muhammad had assumed the role of prophet. Although the group was small, the Shi'ites were persecuted along with other ghulat groups. And this created a wound that is still bleeding 14 centuries later.

MODERN HISTORY

The question of Shiite, alongside the question of other ethnic and religious minorities, which live centuries as 2nd class citizens under the domination of the Sunni Arab majority in the Arab world, , "this question" had been put in a box at the post independence time in the 50s and 60s, instead of addressing it in a serious manner. This box had been kept closed till the late seventies, when the Islamic revolution in Iran succeeded in ousting the Shah and putting an end to his reign. Arab countries neighboring Iran feared that the revolution will arrive at their shores. They saw on it, specially Saudi Arabia and Saddam's Iraq, which has a significant Shiite society living within, they saw in the revolution a regional volcano that will undermine their stability, after all, Khomeini were advertising the spreading of the revolution in the whole Islamic world. They needed a factor that they can use to rally support and solidarity, both internal and regional, for facing the new Islamic republic. And, they decided to open the box and pull out the Shiite question. They argued that the Shiites, now are strong in Iran, will seek vengeance for centuries of persecution, and they (Saudis & Iraqis) allocated all resources and connections with both regional and international media to advertise that, taking advantage of the American's and Israeli negative mood after losing their man in Iran and having too many problems with the new emerging republic. This argument gained ground in the Arab world's Sunni majority. Iraq used it to wage an eight-year war on Iran with the backing of most of the Arab states, and most of the world. Saudi Arabia took it as a moral umbrella to use tanks and gunships to quell a Shiite protests in its eastern provinces city of Dammam, in early 80s, which demanded to bury their dead in the province's cemetery. Saudi regime received almost no criticism for doing so, and up to date, Shiites have to drive 150 kilometers away from the city to bury their dead. This new persecution added salt to the already open wound. 

Those who opened the box couldn't put the Shiite question back in it ever since. There is a cold war between Sunnis and Shiites wherever they co-exist in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon are just a very clear example.

2011

In Bahrain, and as a popular uprising materialized, the Ruling family tried to rally the support of both, its Sunni Minority, and the Sunni Majority of its big sister, Saudi Arabia. They once again, used the Shiite vengeance Scarecrow. The media focused on it and succeeded in gaining the support of the Sunnis, in disregard of the Sunnis already participated in the pro-reform movement. GCC forces were requested by the regime to help crush the uprising, and it did in a very brutal way that left many dead, injured, and detained. A systemic suppression followed then, targeting the Shiite villages and people. And for the most in the Arab world, it was morally justified, as it is to prevent a Shiite vengeance against the Sunnis for centuries of persecution. The regimes of the Arab gulf countries, and above all their sponsored media, and in attempt to gain western solidarity, they went further to label the protesters and activists as tools of a foreign "evil" agenda, the agenda of Iran. 

If uprising in Tunisia and Egypt raise the question of democracy in the Arab world. Uprising in Bahrain must pull the Question of minorities out of the box. Not only the Shiite Question, but the Christians question, the Qabils question, the Kurds question, and so on. Because it is no longer acceptable, in the 21st century, that these minorities will always be pushed to choose between living in the Arab states as a 2nd class citizens, or to be labeled as tools of foreign agenda if they protest in demand of their just rights. These authoritarian regimes failed to maintain a national identity for decades, despite advocating it in their literature. In fact, they used the diversities of their societies to maintain power under the strategy of "divide and rule". And as they are falling now under the pressure of the pro-democracy wave, the upcoming national identity building must consider answers to the minority question. They must be treated as equal citizens in a democratic future, and perhaps, just a citizen without the need to mention their ethnic origin, or religious background.