In Zinj, the Khomaini, Khamina’i and Sistani pictures are still up. They say that the same pictures are still up in Manama as well.
Although individually I hold all of these personalities in very high regard, I fail to see why anyone in their right mind would try to involve them in local politics. And why would anyone carry the Iranian flag (amongst others apparently) during the processions again beggars the mind.
It’s no wonder that the ruling families (all over) hold the Shi’a with suspicion. But they fail to realise that (as in today’s Al-Wasat (arabic)) the Shi’a choose two different ideals which guide their lives and ask the world not to judge them: nationality they say is different than religious identity, and that the Iranian flag, its revered personalities and those of Iraq take precedence over national concerns, or at least share it.
Then we ask the government not to “take it wrong” as this has nothing to do with nationality.
Excuse me a second here… of course it does.
When the chips are down: would a Bahraini Shi’a get up and fight for any cause because Sistani declared it as Jihad? Would they do the same if Bahrain were to be invaded and the King asked us all to help and resist an occupation.
Which would we choose?
I know where I would stand there… on Bahrain’s side.
Comments
Belonging
Mahmood writes “It’s no wonder that the ruling families (all over) hold the Shi’a with suspicion. But they fail to realise that (as in today’s Al-Wasat) the Shi’a choose two different ideals which guide their lives and ask the world not to judge them: nationality they say is different than religious identity, and that the Iranian flag, its revered personalities and those of Iraq take precedence over national concerns, or at least share it. ”
I only know a few Shi’a in my personal life. All of my associates are Sunni, mostly from the Gulf and from the Shams. There seems to be a perception amoungst a segment of this group that Shi’a are kind of a fifth column for Iran and that the goal is Shi’a domination in many of these lands. I think this kind of generalising, and demonisation, leads to a lot of the issues between the two groups.
I often find myself engaged in heated debate over these issues. More often than not I am in the minority, if not the only person, aruging the one side. It is surprising how many Sunni do not even view Shi’a as Muslim. It is also surprising how many of them almost take the line that Hitler had with the Jews, that that Shi’a are there to undermine, even overthrow their governments. I heard a lot of these types of arugments after the US invasion of Iraq when it was felt that a future Shi’a government in Iraq might embolden the Shi’a in the Gulf and elsewhere to assert their rights.
My opinion was “good”. People have a right to choose their governments and the people that would lead over them. If a majority of a people in a given nation state are Shi’a it would make sense that the government would reflect this. I find it interesting that, during the recent rounds of voting in Saudi Arabia, that the oppressed Shi’a voted in very large numbers.
I dont buy the idea that Shi’a will back Iran over their own national concerns, or that they should. How many Iraqi Shi’a died fighing against Iran during their war? Were the Shi’a anyless patriotic or less Shi’a because they stood against Iran? To me this brandishing of Iranian flags is much like the radical Sunnis/Salafee who regard anything coming from Saudi as being superior to the institutions and ideas that come from their own back yard.
I think, in the end, some people would heed the call to Jihad if it were made by a respected religious leader. But, I think more likely than not the support for such a call would be based on nationalistic lines rather than religious lines.
Belonging
It would really be interesting to know your take on the Bahraini “persians” as well Mahmood?
I think it is only fair that when you have a dig at the shia you touch upon other aspects as well.
I have a “persian” friend who has no hesitation or shame in admitting that he would back his country “Iran” over Bahrain… he was born in Bahrain, raised in Bahrain, has a Bahraini passort. Yet (and this is only one recent example) when Iran came here to play Bahrain in the World Cup qualifiers, him and hordes of other “persians” left their Bahraini passports at home and came with their Iranian flags.
The only difference is that they don’t go out screaming “politics, politics!” in public. That makes it alright if they are not entirely loyal, yes?
I do agree with Malik, in that most of us would rather protect our homes, our land, then go out to serve someone else’s cause, abroad.
Re: Belonging
I would like to think of myself as non-judgemental, and non-racist kind of person, but as you know that is a huge problem in Bahrain, as we tend to classify people, put them in pigeonholes and stereotype them in everything. I don’t have to bring out examples because we are amply aware of them.
Therefore, my yardstick is quite clear and does not distinguish between ethnic backgrounds. I would have come just as hard on Sunnis who support Saudi because of their Wahabi sect over Bahrain. Or Pakistanis who support Pakistan against Bahrain.
The issue is really deaper than this: indiginous Bahrainis love to distinguish groups, and cast them out, abjectly refusing any form of integration. Yes, those groups might have excluded themselves, but to me as an engineer the rule of every action has a reaction is a rule I live by. Bahrainis of Persian descent feel completely outcast, hence they form support groups between themselves, and rather than attempting harder to integrate, they tend to exclude themselves by themsleves. It is exactly the same with any other group within this island over hundreds of years. And some still don’t feel integrated. Hawala, Hasawis, Persians, Bedu etc all have prejudices against other groups, as if they are selected by God Himself to represent him on Earth. And the downward spiral continue.
We need to find ways to integrate. To at least accept each others’ existance and their full right to call themselves Bahraini regardless of where their forefathers hailed from.
So to answer your question, I take exactly the same stand as I have in the article against some of the Shi’a hijacking what is a solemn religious occasion and politicising it. No not only politicising it, but showing the whole world that they hold their religious leaders as of much more importance than the country that they are nationals of, and has nurtured them. By inference, these people would rise up to their religious leader’s call (in this case religious leadership of a foreign country) rather than the leadership of this country.
I also recognise why some of them feel much more loyalty to their chosen religious leadership than the political leaders of this country: they feel agrieved, sidelined, marginalised, subjugated, down-trodden and outside of the circle of influence.
They will never get out of these spirals unless they are prepared to take the middle ground. Demonstrate that they are trustworthy as far as nationalism is concerned, and exert all efforts to accept others and integrate within the society rather than live by distinguishing ethnic lines and lineage. And of course on the other side of the coin it is for the political leadership in this country to demonstrate to the people that they too recognise them as worthy and trustworthy citizens.
Both groups need to desperately reconcile. We need a Desmond Tutu in Bahrain, who’s going to step up to the plate and start the process?
So far only one person has championed reforms in this country. I hope – against hope – that the crown prince will take it upon himself to lead the way to national reconciliation. Maybe once that process is started, ethnic groups on the island will start to think beyond their noses and think of national unity and shared future rather than demonstrate once again, that in a kingdom the size of this island we have more ethnic divisions and personal/group agendas than a whole continent.
Belonging
Mahmood writes “Hawala, Hasawis, Persians, Bedu etc all have prejudices against other groups, as if they are selected by God Himself to represent him on Earth. And the downward spiral continue. ”
This is one thing I have noticed, as an outsider, about the people in the Middle East. A large chunk of them have prejudices against other peoples. I know my wife’s family, almost as a whole, don’t care for Egyptians, and to a lesser extent the Bedu and people from Riyadh. Some people from the area don’t like Moroccans, others don’t like Palestinians. I have always thought this was illogical, nonsense, and has contributed to the fractious nature of the region and gets in the way of progress.
It is sad that these ideas carry themselves with the immigrant communities here in the USA. It is interesting to watch people after Salat al Jummah prayers here. Afterwards the Sudanese go to where all of the Sudanese are……..Palestinians to where are all of the Palis are…..Syrians to where the Syrians are. People like this miss one of the most important and best messages of Islam, all people are exactly the same.
Re: Belonging
[quote]It is sad that these ideas carry themselves with the immigrant communities here in the USA. It is interesting to watch people after Salat al Jummah prayers here. Afterwards the Sudanese go to where all of the Sudanese are……..Palestinians to where are all of the Palis are…..Syrians to where the Syrians are. [/quote]
The ghettoization of immigrant or religious groups is a big -big- problem in a ‘multicultural’ society. If you only associate with yourself or people that think like you, then you defeat the entire purpose of multiculturalism. Not only that, but it contributes to a sort of stratification of society. If your particular culture is insular and ghettoized, then you are necessarily on the fringes of the host society, which leads to disenfranchisement, cries of ‘racism’ and possibly violence.
We can see this occuring especially in places like Europe. I will not say that there are no racist Europeans, but the immigrant communities by and large have ghettoized themselves – and resistsed full integration for a variety of reasons – cultural or religious purity being the primary ones.
Which brings up a bizaare question: If these immigrants wish for their own cultural/religious purity to be sacrosanct – why did they emigrate in the first place? It is not (Steve and Malik may even back me on this!) the charge of the host country to change itself to fit its immigrant population. If it was – why even have nations and not nomadic tribes of like-minded or like-skinned or like-religio/political people?
Re(1): Belonging
Ethan writes “The ghettoization of immigrant or religious groups is a big -big- problem in a ‘multicultural’ society. If you only associate with yourself or people that think like you, then you defeat the entire purpose of multiculturalism. Not only that, but it contributes to a sort of stratification of society. If your particular culture is insular and ghettoized, then you are necessarily on the fringes of the host society, which leads to disenfranchisement, cries of ‘racism’ and possibly violence. ”
To a certain extent you are right, but this is not as it used to be here in the USA. There were times when entire sections of cities were Irish, German, you name it. Not so any more. There might be small areas where the Muslim community is concentrated in some areas of the USA, but not many. Our street is a good example. We have Jews on one side of us, white American military family on the other side, and Pakistanis, Indians, Germans and Vietnames down the street.
In the USA the Muslim concentrations usually tend to be around mosques, the reasoning is that the people want to have access to mosques for their prayers, just like Some sects of Jews will concentrate around Synagogues. We have one up the street and on summer nights we sit on the porch and watch them walk to Sabbath prayers as it is illegal for them to drive.
Ethan writes “We can see this occuring especially in places like Europe. I will not say that there are no racist Europeans, but the immigrant communities by and large have ghettoized themselves – and resistsed full integration for a variety of reasons – cultural or religious purity being the primary ones. ”
Having been born and lived in Europe I can tell you another reason why people have put themselves into ghettos. It has to do with the sometimes awful way they are treated by the citizens of that nation. Germany, France, perfect examples of nations who have a long history of treating their immigrant communities VERY badly. I have been in these ghettos, I have seen what these people face from the Germans and French, and I dont blame them for wanting to feel safe amoungst their own. Here in the USA, thank God, it isnt this way anymore.
Ethan writes “If these immigrants wish for their own cultural/religious purity to be sacrosanct – why did they emigrate in the first place? It is not (Steve and Malik may even back me on this!) the charge of the host country to change itself to fit its immigrant population. If it was – why even have nations and not nomadic tribes of like-minded or like-skinned or like-religio/political people? ”
It is not the job of the government to change anything. My point about the people at the Mosque had more to do with social interaction than ethnic ghettos, which are almost non exsistant here in the USA. I will tell you the reason the majority of people come to the USA, money, plain and simple. 95% of the people who immigrate to the USA would not do so if they could make a decent living in their own country. Some come for freedom, for most it is money.
Re(2): Belonging
[quote]To a certain extent you are right, but this is not as it used to be here in the USA. There were times when entire sections of cities were Irish, German, you name it. Not so any more. [/quote]
This is true – however, the labels of ‘French’ and ‘Polish’ and ‘Jewish