More Responses to Peter Sluglett
Dear Peter,
It shocks me to see academics enjoying twisting facts and realities that were there on ground, without going back to actual figures and studies that support their alleged truth.
1- Iraqi Shia always had a role in the government, at least within the parliament. As an example the first head of the Iraqi (Majlis Ayan) which reflects the Congress in the US was from the well known Al Sadir family. He was a religious man. Many Shia were ministers, and members of parliament. The reality is, back then, the British did not use the divide and rule among the Moslem population so you never new who was a Shia and who was a Sunni, some were Islamists like my grandfather, Yaseen Al Khedairy, and his Friend Al Sadir, others were secular like Nuri Saeed, Salih Jabur (Another Shia), Mohammed Al Sadir, Mohammed Fadhil Al Jamali (who was another Shia), Rasheed Ali, Muhsin Al Sadoon and others, so you can see it was not always the Sunnis who were prime-ministers. There was a Kurd also who led a coup, supported by the Palace during King Ghazi, to limit the influence of Yaseen Al Hashimi who spearheaded Arab nationalism and was a threat to the throne at the time. He brought non-arabs as prime ministers, until he was killed in Iraq. The last Iraqi prime minister was also a Kurd, Ahmed Mukhtar Baban
2- There were many parties that had strong influence in the parliament that were led by Shia, Mohammed Mahdi Kubba is one example.
3- To have a complete view of the history of Iraqi prime ministers, I would advise you to go back to the Arabic book "History of Iraqi Ministries" written by the late historian Abdul Razzaq Al Hassani who was a Shia by the way…
4- Iraqis at the time and later never considered themselves as Sunni or Shia but as Muslims. That was the reality.
5- The Baath regime also included Shia as top figures; Nadhim Kzar, executed in 1973 trying to lead a coup within the party, Adnan Al Hamdani, Mohammed Mahdi Al Zaubeidi, Sadoon Hammadi and many others including Ayad Alawi.
6- The Baath regime was not sectarian in nature but secular and nationalist, so it considered any religious entity that wanted to mix religion with politics as an enemy of the state. This is why many religious leaders whether Sunni and Shia were prosecuted, since both were danger to the diversity of the Iraqi society, and a threat to the secular trend within the Iraqi society at the time. Likewise the governments BEFORE the Baath also considered certain religious aspects as danger to the fabric of the Iraqi society. It was not just a government trend but a social trend, Iraqis identified themselves as secular, and that started with the creation of the Iraqi state, until the fall of the last legitimate Iraqi Government. During the rise of Khumeinism, and the rule of the religious in Iran , this was a serious threat to the Iraqi fabric, that is why the prosecution of certain religious elements was perceived by the rest of the world as sectarian in nature.
7- As a matter of fact even those Iraqis who consider themselves as Shia but secular still consider the rise of religious political power as very dangerous and do not favor it at all.
Munir
/////////////////////////
Dear Mr. Sluglett,
I have been following your argument with Ms. Natheema, and it seems that you have made the same mistakes most westerners make.
1- We, Iraqis, do not identify ourselves as Sunnis and Shias, not even as Moslems or Christians, not before the occupation anyway. When asked about our identity we would say: Iraqis. The 1970 Iraqi Constitution, which is still valid, as we do not recognize a constitution written by the occupier, states that Iraq consists of two main ethnic groups: Arabs and Kurds, in addition to Turkmen and other groups. We do not consider a sect or a religion is an identity.
There are different religions in Iraq: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Believers of these religions could be Arabs, Kurds, or any other ethnic groups.
2- Arabs constitute 80% of Iraqis.
3- The aim of occupation was to isolate Iraq from its Arabic affiliation with the Arab world, so the Occupiers had to come out with a trick that make Arabs a minority not a majority. Thus Iraqi Arabs were divided into Shias and Sunnis. The word "Arab" was not mentioned once in the occupiers’ constitution. So Iraq was considered a non-Arab country. Now the occupiers and their media call the Iraqi Arabs who are Sunnis by sect, as "Sunni Arabs". While they never call the Iraqi Arabs who are Shias as "Shia Arabs”, only Shia as if their sect is their identity. On the same level, consider that the occupier do not divide the Christian Arabs into Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants etc. Have you asked yourself once about the "real" reason for dividing the Arab Moslems only ?
4- As a scholar, you have not bothered to reflect on the absurdity of dividing the population of Iraq on different categories, while the Kurds are identified by their ethnic groups, so are the Turkmen, and all other communities, the Arabs are identified by their sects. You justify this strangely, saying "the Kurds do not on the whole associate themselves with or make alliances with the Sunni Arabs". Well do they associate themselves then with the Shia Arabs? or they do not associate themselves with any Arab?
5- Another mistake, is that you supposed that Saddam was sectarian, while all his enemies say that if he had one virtue, it was that he was not sectarian but secular. He did not make "sectarian affiliation into an issue by expelling Shiis on the grounds that they were 'really' Iranian, first the Fa'ilis and later Shii Arabs" as you indicated. If these were Shia Arabs, why were they called "Iranians"? For your information, the people expelled out of the country were those whose origin was Iranian, that was during the Iran-Iraq war which was fought on the side of Iraq by an army that consisted mostly of Shia Arabs loyal to their country. Most of the Iraqi army commanders were shia, most of the ministers in the cabinet were shia, most of the members of Baath party were shia.
On the other hand, expelling or jailing people whose origin is the same as that of one’s enemy at times of wars is not Saddam's invention. History tells us that the USA did the same with Japanese Americans at the Pearl Harbor time, also in England, British of German origin were placed in an Island and some were put in jail during the WW!!
Another fact you should know is that Saddam did not forbid Shia parties and organization only, but all religious parties including Sunni Islamic party. He was right of course, for you can see for yourself how religious parties have turned Iraq into: a backward Ayatollah state.
Thank you for reading this letter to the end.
Buthaina
Iraqi writer
///////////////
Peter Sluglett's response to Buthaina's letter was inserted within each of her points in red bold.
On 1/26/07, <Sluglett@aol.com> wrote:
I have been following your argument with Ms. Natheema, and it seems that you have made the same mistakes that most Westerners make.
1- We, Iraqis, do not identify ourselves as Sunnis and Shias, not even as Moslems or Christians, not before the occupation anyway. To a certain extent, you are right; there was a gradual process of secularization at work in Iraq from the 1920s until the 1960s-70s, and of course Ba'thism is secular (as can be seen from the fact that it was taken up by Iraqi Sunnis and Syrian Alawis). What reintroduced sectarianism was the Iranian revolution and the growth of groups like al-Da'wa as nodes of opposition to the regime.
When asked about our identity we would say: Iraqis. The 1970 Iraqi Constitution, which is still valid, as we do not recognize a constitution written by the occupier, states that Iraq consists of two main ethnic groups: Arabs and Kurds, in addition to Turkmen and other groups. We do not consider a sect or a religion is an identity.
There are different religions in Iraq: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Believers of these religions could be Arabs, Kurds, or any other ethnic groups. Of course, I know that perfectly well: I have written 2 books on Iraq and about 70 articles
2- Arabs constitute 80% of Iraqi people. Maybe a little less, but certainly 70 per cent (Kurds + Turcomans + Armenians + Assyrians)
3- The aim of occupation was to isolate Iraq from its Arabic affiliation with the Arab world, so the Occupiers had to come out with a trick that make Arabs a minority not a majority. Thus Iraqi Arabs were divided into Shias and Sunnis. The word "Arab" was not mentioned once in the occupiers constitution. Iraq was considered a non-Arab country. This is an odd way of putting it.
Now the occupiers and their media call the Iraqi Arabs who are sunnis by sect , as "Sunni arabs". While they never call the Iraqi Arabs who are shias as "Shia Arabs". Only Shia as if their sect is their identity. On the same level, consider that the occupier do not divide the Christian Arabs into Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants etc. Have you asked yourself once about the "real" reason for dividing the Arab Moslems only ? The Christians form about 4 per cent of the population so they are not an especially important factor -- and many of them have either left or want to leave. But the fact is that you have a 'Sunni insurgency' run by old Ba'thists etc (and al-Qa'ida) and a 'Shii insurgency' run by partly Muqtada al-Sadr and partly by the Badr brigades. And Sunnis are killing Shiis (and vice versa), much as much as we might wish it was not so.
4- As a scholar, you have not bothered to reflect on the absurdity of dividing the population of Iraq on different categories, while the Kurds are identified by their ethnic groups, so are the Turkmen, and all other communities, the Arabs are identified by their sects. You justify this strangely, saying "the Kurds do not on the whole associate themselves with or make alliances with the Sunni Arabs". Well do they associate themselves then with the Shia Arabs? or they do not associate themselves with any Arab? You have misunderstood my point. Most Kurds are Suniis, but that fact is not enough for them to associate with the Sunni Arabs. (i.e. it is not simply a matter of sect; they are both Sunnis but that is not a factor which unites them)
5- Another mistake, is that you supposed that Saddam was sectarian, while all his enemies say that if he had one virtue, it was that he was not sectarian but secular. He did not make "sectarian affiliation into an issue by expelling Shiis on the grounds that they were 'really' Iranian, first the Fa'ilis and later Shii Arabs" If these were Shia Arabs, how come that they were called "Iranian"? For your information, the people expelled out of the country were those whose origin was Iranian, who cares what their origins 'really' were? If they had been so keen on being 'Iranian' why hadn't they left a long time before? Do you think they were just waiting until the Shah was removed so that they could 'betray' Iraq ?????!!!!! that was during the Iran-Iraq war which was fought on the side of Iraq by an army which consisted mostly of Shia Arabs loyal to their country. Most of the Iraqi army commanders were shia, most of the ministers in the cabinet were shia , most of the members of Baath party were shia. But the RCC were all Sunnis. Of course, what really matters is that all the influential figures were Takritis (i.e. related -- however distantly -- to SH). They were Sunnjis because that's what people who live in that part of Iraq are.
On the other hand, expelling or jailing people of the same origin of that of your enemy at times of wars is not Saddam's invention. History tells us that USA did the same with Japanese Americans at the Pearl Harbor time, also in England, British of German origin were placed in an Island and some were put in jail during the WW!!. yes, I know that, and that is shameful.
Another fact you should know is that Saddam did not forbid Shia parties and organization only, but all religious parties including Sunni Islamic party. He was right of course, for you can see for yourself what religious parties can turn Iraq into: a backward Ayatollah state. Of course, SH was opposed to Sunni parties (Muslim Brothers as well). But the way in which Shiism is organized (around the hawza etc) made Shii parties the only political bodies which could stand up to or oppose SH -- as is clear from the 1991 intifada, for instance.
/////////////
Buthaina's final response to Peter Sluglett's reply above
Dear Sluglett:
Sorry for this delay to respond to your comments on my letter, but I am sure, as a scholar, you will welcome and appreciate any corrections to some of the points concerning Iraq.
1- I agree to some of your explanations of "reintroducing sectarianism", but you have to agree that Iraqi government in 1980s did not oppose the Iranian revolution and affliated parties like al -Da'wa for sectarian reasons, but because they worked at toppling the regime, which is apparent from the attempt at assassination of the head of the state in what is known as al Dujail. Iran was feared by most of the Arab countries in the region because of their fear of the potential revival of the Persian empire cloacked in Islam this time.
The Iraqi non-setarian approach to Iran and Da'wa party and other similar parties was obvious from the fact that most of the Iraqi troops which fought Iran during the 8 years war, were shias defending "not their faith" but their own country against Iran.
2- I am glad to hear that you wrote 2 books and 70 articles about Iraq. But I am very curious to know what did you write about and what were your sources. I hope they were not people like Chalabi who told the US administration about the WMD and all other lies such as mass graves which only 3 of them were found with about 300 people whom nobody knows how they died and who killed them and when.
3- I do not know what you mean exactly by the word insurgents. Are they the people who fight the Occupation troops? in this case, al - Sadr and Badr Brigade do not fight these troops. They are part of what -so-called " political process" which is conducted by the americans.
As for the Baathist "sunni insurgents" I think we have agreed already that Baath party is not a "sunni party". Pls. read again your own comment on my letter "and of course Baathism is secular as can be seen from the fact that it was taken up by Iraqi Sunnis and Serian Alawis", although you are mistaken here: Baathism was not taken up only by Iraqi sunnis but mostly by Iraqi shias. Go back to the history of the party which was founded in Southern Iraq by Shias.
As for the sectarian struggle, pls go back to Iraq history and show me if there was any sectarian war between shias and sunnis, before the occupation.
4- I do not know how you think that Islam "sunni or otherwise" is not a unifying factor between kurds and arabs. This is strange, because Islam is global. Look at the Pakistanis, Indians and other non-arab moselms who went out into the streets because of the Danish insulting cartoons, or defending Moselms of palestine or Iraq. The al Qaeda, in fact depends on this globalisation of Islam to recruit people from different arab and non -arab countries, even moslems from Europe or USA. There is a bond that unites moslems everywhere. This is the reason why USA wants to divide Islam into fuelling sectarian wars.
On the other hand, the prophet of Islam is an Arab and the Quran itself is in Arabic so Kurds and other non arab moslems believe that God has honored Arabs with this.
They eventually learn Arabic in order to read the Quran. You have to learn more about Kurds. I do not mean the leaders of the two main parties because they do not represent the people of Kurdistan. Ask any Kurd about that. Also, you have to read our history to know the influence of Salah Al Deen Al Ayoubi, the moslem Kurd who lead the arabs and other moselms to conquer the crusaders. You are very much mistaken if you think for just one moment that religion is not a factor which unites kurds and arabs. It shows that you only listen to kurds who have been outside Iraq for 50 years or so and are not believers in Islam or any other religion and who preach a fake version of the history of their own people. You have to talk to the ordinary kurd in the streets of kurdistan.
5- The influential figures around Saddam Hussein were Tikritis? where did you get that idea from, for heaven's sake?
Let us see: His deputies? izzat Ibrahim? not Tikriti. Tarik Aziz? A Christian from somewhere around Mosul. Taha Yassin Ramadan? a Kurd. Al sahaf? a shia from Babel. Minister of Defence Sultan Hashim? He is from Mosul. Look at the other co-defentants in the show -Trials. Only three were Tikritis : Saddam, Barzan and al Majid.
who else? 35 of the 55 of US-most wanted figures were shia. I agree with you that perhaps, his guards, and men of his own security were mostly from Tikrit and family but these are not "influencial"
Another myth, is your belief that "the people who live in that part of Iraq are sunnis" what part of Iraq is pure sunni or pure shia? or pure kurd? or pure christian ? could you refer me to your sources of information? In Iraq, there is no city that can be exclusively sunni or shia, if it were , we would not have seen the sectarian cleansing operations raging like fire. You do not cleanse a city that consists wholly of one sect. I think this is obvious, you do not have to be a scholar to know that. Take for instance, Samarrah, the city of the golden tombs. The people there are mostly sunnis but it has three of the most sacred shia icons and there are ofcouse shia inhabitants.
Have you heard "before the occupation" of any sectarian war in Samarrah? never. Perhaps you have not heard that there is such a city in Iraq until it went into the media because of the destruction of the tombs. Who did this to raise a sectarian war? The sunnis were guardians of these shia tombs for centuries. Look at albasrah, the farthest city in the south, there is a cleansing going on because many parts of the "shia" city are sunnis.
7- about the intifada, here you are mistaken again. The intifada which took part in the south during the crisis of the Kuwait war and after the withdrawal of the Iraqi army, while the state was at its weakest, was run by the Iranian guards and militias, the same which are conducting now the crimes of mass kidnapping, torturing, and killing.
Thank you again for allowing me so much of your time. But I implore you to change, or at least expand, your sources. Try to look at all the faces of truth, so that your judgement would be more reasonable.
Buthaina
//////
