8:33PM
Smith on the Shia
Issandr El Amrani
How stupid:
Yes, of course, this "triumph of the Shiites" is a calamity for all Sunnis everywhere. They are cowering as we speak. All of them. And the situation of the Shiites is absolutely comparable to American slavery, of course. And really, the partition of Palestine is a bit like Louisiana Purchase, only in reverse!
And, by the way, in the Arab world about 99% of the population has been "second class citizens since A.D. 656.
(Connoisseurs will appreciate dissecting this article for the people it cites as authorities, the American analogies it utilizes as well as the views it reflects. Think MEF in the MSM.)
In the Arab world, Shiites have largely been second-class citizens since A.D. 656, when Hussein, a grandson of Muhammad, was tortured and beheaded after a climactic battle with the Sunnis. That social order persisted through Mongol invasions, the Ottoman Empire and British occupation, until now.
For Sunni Arabs, then, the triumph of the Iraqi Shiites is a calamity. The tables have been turned in a manner reminiscent of the South during Reconstruction, when former slaves not only were freed and granted civil rights, but also briefly won political power in some states.
Yes, of course, this "triumph of the Shiites" is a calamity for all Sunnis everywhere. They are cowering as we speak. All of them. And the situation of the Shiites is absolutely comparable to American slavery, of course. And really, the partition of Palestine is a bit like Louisiana Purchase, only in reverse!
And, by the way, in the Arab world about 99% of the population has been "second class citizens since A.D. 656.
(Connoisseurs will appreciate dissecting this article for the people it cites as authorities, the American analogies it utilizes as well as the views it reflects. Think MEF in the MSM.)
Reader Comments (5)
SHUT UP N.Y.T.
I blame King Abdullah for all this stupidity. Even if all of the American journalists were thinking about it, few were openly claiming that the Sunnis were shivering in their boots at the thought of Shiite power.
But ever since Abdullah's moronic "shiite crescent" remarks, everyone is freely talking about some transnational Shiite entity that will take its revenge on the Sunnis for Karbala.
Hilarious... but its sad that people will read this NYT rubbish and believe it.
I don't think this article should merely be thought of as 'hilarious', 'stupid', or 'rubbish'. Sure, the article as a whole is poor, but its core message is not. The developments in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain and the shiite areas of Saudi Arabia do all have a sectarian component. The fact that US policy is (perceived to be)behind a number of these developments is conducive to allegations that 'shiites are american agents/zionists''. Silly as it may be, this is all material that can be abused by anti-shiite forces (i.e. virtually all salafi groups).
You can be annoyed with Abdullah having spoken of his fear of a 'shiite crescent', but perhaps one is better advised to be alarmed by it. The question is, to what extent should one be alarmed, how serious is the possibility of an escalation of the big fitna?
Brian Ulrich, of Brian's Study Breaks blog, has a quick refute to Smith's NYT piece. According to Brian - this date 656 AD is wrong. Hussayn was assassinated in Karbala in 680AD. He also rightly notes that the Fatimids ruled Egypt and other Shi'ia regimes around the region over the past 1400 years.
It is one thing to make arguments most experts disagree with. It is another thing to screw up historical facts while doing it.
When will Lee Smith ever finish his crummy book on "Arab culture?" The bigger question is why anyone keeps publishing him. Isn't the Tmes embarrassed that Smith gets the date completely wrong in the fourth paragraph of his big story about the battle between Evil Sunnis and Good Shiites? I'd laugh, but unfortunately this article is a fair representation of mainstream discourse about the Middle East.