Demonization of the Shi'a government

I freely confess to my bias - I am an American muslim, a Shi'a, highly orthodox, and even slightly socially conservative on the issues. I still identify as a liberal because I do not see social consevatism and political progressivism as neccessarily at odds.

That said, here's my beef, below the fold.

I have noticed a disturbing tendency at both kos and mydd to accuse the Shia government in Iraq of being an "Iranian ally". This is presumably a talking point against Bush's foreign policy. Unfortunately it demonizes both Iran and Iraq unfairly and obscures the legitimate security concerns related to both countries. Plus it also subtly damages the image of Islam itself - because the implication is that voting for muslim values is a fundamentalist rather than a socially conservative act.

If Democrats can't make a principled case against Bush on foreign policy grounds, rather than partisan polemical cases, then they will continue to lose elections.

I realize that kos and myDD are designed to be partisan. But can't partisanship be principled, rather than knee-jerk?

More on this topic soon at Dean Nation.

•  clarification

  It would be helpful for me if you were to expand more on the difference between fundamentalism and social conservatism. As you know, in this country, the two categories increasingly blur into one another as Biblical justification is used to advance socially conservative causes. So, some clarification would help me understand the issues as they pertain to the Shia gov't.

  by lorraine on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:35:50 AM PDT

  •  simple

    social conservatism: living your life according to a n interpretation of religious doctrine.

    Example: insisting your daughter wear modest clothing to school and social events. Or teaching abstinence from the church pulpit.

    fundamentalism: imposing that interpretation upon others who dont share it.

    Example: forcing women, under threat of violence, to wear burkas. Our outlawing sex education / funding for contraception with public health funds.

    The "fatwas" which many have derided from Ayatollah Sistani - who by the way I do not recognize as a religious authority for my specific sect, the Dawoodi Bohra Shi'a - are interpretations in response to questions asked, and are not being imposed by supreme autocratic law upon all muslims in Iraq.
    

    by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:43:51 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      A few more questions then. My understanding of fundamentalism is that it's a literal interpretation of the "word." That is, whatever the religious text says is not open to interpretation. I'm trying to figure out why social conservatism has to be linked to religion. For example, I would argue that social conservatism has a political purpose in that it teaches obedience to authority.
      And just out of curiosity, are boys required to dress modestly, too?

      by lorraine on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:51:44 AM PDT

      •  absolutely

        boys too.

        however, religious interpretation is used as much by fundies as anyone - theirs is just a stricter reading. and often more nakely power-driven rather than in good faith, especially when religion is used  to exert that power over women.

        by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:04:51 AM PDT

    •  question

      I'm curious about the distinction you're making, and I think it's due more to my own unfamiliarity with religiousness in general than on any failing in your communication...

      If fundamentalism is defined as "imposing a religious interpretation on others who don't share it", then isn't basing Iraq's new system of government on Islamic law inherently fundamentalist?  My assumption has been that that automatically means things like criminal sentences that would be considered draconian by secular western standards and women being forced to wear hijaabs in public, etc - is that inaccurate?

      Theocracies make me nervous, no matter what religion they're based on, but that's probably based on my own biases and on misinformation as much than it is on logic and sound reasoning.

      by tomaxxamot on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:19:44 AM PDT

  •  It's a Definition Problem

    Part of the problem is the definition of fundamentalism in the first place.

    A Fundamentalist, by definition, is a person who believes in the fundamental or basic principals of their religion.  Do so-called Christian or Islamic Fundamentalist truly believe in the real message of their faith.  

    I propose that both Christians and Muslims who espouse these beliefs are really Radicals and not Fundamentalists.  This is because they do not represent the core values of their faith.

    by Liberal boy 47 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:00:53 AM PDT

•  I can't speak for all Kossacks

  I have never seen any comments demonizing the Shi'a government.  In fact, where some commenst have been made mentioninf the close ties between the Shi'a in Iraq with those in Iran, there is usually a disclaimer that those in Iraq, specially Sistani, do not want a country run by clerics, but one based on Islamic law.

  This is obviously their right.

  More commonly, the point has been that this is probably exactly what Bush wanted to avoid.

  There is probably more demonizing of the Christian Right than of the Shi'a.

  That being said, I would hope you would educate a lot of us on what all this means from your point of view.

  I think you could probably bring a lot to the table that would help us understand not only the religion of Islam, but also some of the differences between Sunni and Shi'a at a better level than we get from a lot of the media and pundits.

  by JAPA21 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:36:41 AM PDT

  •  well,

    myDD has been worse in this regard, but several recenmt stories and diaries here at Kos have also touched on the theme. Rather than single out someone's post I'd rather talk about teh issue in the abstract to avoid defensiveness.

    by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:44:01 AM PDT

•  I was having similar thoughts.

  ...as I read this comment by Kos on the front page: "Instead, it looks like we did Iran's dirty work for them -- installing a fundamentalist Islamic government allied with one of the US's top foreign enemies."

  Which of course fails to ask the question of whether Iran should be "one of the US's top foreign enemies."

  Now, I'm no fan of the right-wing clerics ruling Iran, but I do think US saber-rattling towards Iran weakens progressive forces within that country. I also think that the Iranian clerical regime poses no threat to the United States whatsoever, however unsatisfactory they may be to the Iranian people.

  As to voting for "muslim values"...

  It seems to me that Islam is just like Christianity or any other religion in that it can either have progressive or conservative tendencies, or a mix of both. It's true that the current folks in power in Iran are quite conservative. This does not mean that there aren't progressive Iranian muslims. In fact many of them were involved in the overthrow of the odious Shah and were unfortunately sidelined by Khomeini, with the bellicose US aiding Khomeini by legitimizing his promotion of xenophobia.

  The relative progressive/conservative bent of the Iraqi Shias is hard to discern at the moment, but it seems to me to be leaning pretty hard towards conservative. However, if that's what Iraqis want from their Islam, that's their right. One hopes that progressive forces will grow, over time, back to the levels they once were before Saddam (and US aid to Saddam designed partly to crush those forces)

  by Rojo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

  •  Iraqi women, too?

    Having just posted on the increasing prevalence of honour killings in Iraq since the war, I wonder if the conservative Islam you speak of is what Iraqi women want.

    I'm asking because I'm curious why social conservatism seems to include more strictures against women than it does against men.

    by lorraine on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:56:10 AM PDT

    •  It's certainly not

      what a significant number of Iraqi women want (see Riverbend for confirmation of that), but it's also not our place to determine the social make-up of Iraq. That's a dilemma, I admit, but I would suggest that the more we support US interventionism in the name of Iraqi women, the less successful Iraqi women will likely be in pressing their own demands.

      by Rojo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:20:59 AM PDT

•  The future of Iraq

  I do not think that a government led by the United Iraqi Alliance is the worst of all possible outcomes.  I also think that historical and geographical trends point to a closer association between Iraq and Iran, and, more generally, a greater role for Iran in the entire area between the Mediterranean, the Indus, and the Syr Darya.  

  I think that the best-case situation, if we do see a UIA government formed, is that it comes to share with Iran the trends toward greater secularism and liberalism and government.  The downside of that could be that Bush administration tactics which are apparently designed to strengthen the grip of the conservative ayatollahs would also result in a comparable right-wing dominance in Iraq.

  The only intelligible alternatives to Shi'ite dominance in Iraq are 1) a minority Sunni Arab dominance -- which means dictatorship a la Saddam Hussein, which I think few Americans would see as very desirable; 2) the break-up of Iraq into two or three states, which is again not greatly desired by any party.

  But the fact is that, right now, we have none of these things; the de facto government of Iraq is still an American-controlled military government.  The "Provisional Government" of Iyad Allawi is a puppet and a sham.  The true test of a UIA government is whether it can take control back into its own hands: which, since the American government would never surrender operational control of its troops to Iraqi commanders, has to mean the departure of the U.S. Army from Iraq.

  We are well beyond the stage where Americans have a say in the future of this region.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was like pulling a plug in a dam behind which long-suppressed national desires and resentments have been imprisoned.  The wall of water is just now sweeping down the valley.  The U.S. has the choice to stay and watch as its soldiers get drowned, one by one, or evacuate the valley and hope that the result will, eventually, be a green and peaceful lake.  But there is nothing effective to be done by standing in the valley and shouting "stop" at the advancing waters.  King Canute could not do it and neither can the Americans.

  by WIds on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:54:29 AM PDT

•  Who me?

  I know that I've made criticisms of Bush's adventure in Iraq somewhat on the grounds that the sacrifice of American lives and treasure may ultimately result in an Iranian style theocracy.

  But I have also stated that I believed the recent election in Iraq was cause for hope and applause, and that all signals coming from al-Sistani and the predominant Iraqi coalition "list" indicated a desire to govern inclusively and secularly, albeit in an Islamic-based society.

  My biggest fear now is not that this coalition will renege on this promise, but that by antagonizing both Syria and Iran, possibly leading to actual military strikes against the Tehran regime, that BushCo will force the Iraqi public to choose sides between the US and Iran, and obviously they're not going to choose Bush.

  Their blunders might well undo all the slow but significant steps in progress both in Iraq and in Israel/Palestine.

  Let me also say that I too adhere to the conservative social values / liberal political values. Values aren't values if they are imposed by force.

  by baldandy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:55:59 AM PDT

•  Crossed purposes

  Your position seems reasonable. However, I think you've overlooked the subtle point that Bush& are demonizing Iran while handing Iran significant influence in Iraq. That looks at best like crossed purposes and given recent history of this Administration my BS meter is ringing off the wall. Another setup for war???
  

  by dcookie on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:59:02 AM PDT

•  thank you azizhp

  i've been stewing about bringing the topic up myself, but was too damn lazy to post a diary.

  geting caught on the manichaeistic flypaper of good:evil, withus:againstus, east:west, communist:capitalist, sunni:shia ad nauseum only plays into a destructive right wing worldview. they've been using "creative polarisation" for years now, and yet we still keep falling into it. i am astounded at how many times i head otherwise intelligent liberals say "we shouldn't be attacking X, the real enemy is Y"

  listen people, once you're talking about enemies and who ouight to be invaded, you're unwittingly enabling the next invasion. if democrats/liberals/non-psychopathic internationalists stand for anything, it is for the possibility of working out disputes peacefully, with the end goal of a world where there are no "enemies."

  ditto for essentialist nation/ethnic group/religious sect-as-individual discourse. sunnis, chinese, republicans, liberals, communists, greens, mormons, arabs, israelis, afghanis, pakistanis, pashtun, europeans, islamic fundamantalists, etc. etc. invariably have as many differences within their communities as they do between themselves and whatever group we choose to compare them with. no nation, no sect can correctly be spoken of as if it were a person.

  we must learn to see shia as we see protestants or catholics, filled with their own conservatives, liberals, fundamentalists and secularists. people and communities are not platonic ideas, and do not sort out into the neat little boxes in real life as they appear to in the uninformed discussions on the teevee, they are people, flesh and blood, same as you and i. don't believe the hype.

  by wu ming on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:07:44 AM PDT

•  Iranian bloggers have a say

  Here's a link to a story on Alternet about Iranian bloggers for peace. Interesting page with interesting links.

  by Nag on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:25:57 AM PDT

•  Iranian political comment

  

  by Nag on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:30:48 AM PDT

•  My thoughts

  Actually I am happy Iraq voted for the leaders they want.  Hopefully America will respect this (even if eventually thay vote against Oil privatization).  In Democracy, if these leaders fail them they can be voted out next election.

  My beef is did US have to spend $300B and thousands died and maimed to achieve this objective?

  I had always thought Bush sought the most expensive, dangerous,  difficult, unstable way (though most financially rewarding to his campaign contributors and friends in the defense and oil industry) to disarm Saddam, remove Saddam from power or to spread Democracy in the Middle East.  There were other ways.

  The END does not justify the MEANS.

  by timber on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

•  Sadly, I disagree with you

  If Democrats can't make a principled case against Bush on foreign policy grounds, rather than partisan polemical cases, then they will continue to lose elections.

  Did you hear John Kerry at any point demonizing a potential Shi'a government of Iraq?

  I agree with you that it would be wrong to do from a philosophical/moral standpoint (not to mention in terms of practical Mideast policy), but the sad truth is that viewed strictly within the framework of American politics, it would have helped Kerry if he had.

  by Swopa on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:55:14 PM PDT

•  Shia rule not "the problem"

  There are certainly some who truly fear an Iranian-style strict Shi'ite theocracy for Iraq. And there are others who fan the fears of it to embarrass the right.  But to me, all this talk is so premature at this point.  The real question is how the Shi'ite majority will work with non-Shi'ites. Not on questions of personal status - something Shi'ites seem very flexible on - but on the integrity of the country. The big issue is between Shi'ites and the demands of the Kurdish Alliance over Kurdish autonomy, and between the UIA and the Sunni rank-and-file who always thought of themselves as Iraqi first, and Sunni second, but who now find themselves completely out of power (partly, but not entirely, because of their own boycott) because they are Sunnis. Unless a series of national parties emerges that differ from one another on matters of ideology and not sectarian or ethnic representation Iraqi integrity is in grave danger.  There should be political parties that lean toward more social conservatism and traditional interpretations of Islamic law, and parties that lean more toward secularism and liberal conceptions of women's rights. Such political parties would accurately reflect the cross-section of Iraqi thought on significant ideological questions that involve the entire country. It would be possible, then, for conservative Sunnis and Shi'ites to support the same party because of its support for Islamic tenets. Similarly, Kurds and Arab secularists should be able to unite on the basis of their own ideological vision. That should be the divide between major parties in Iraq. Not Sunni v. Shi'ite v. Kurd, which will lead to a breakup of the country or worse.

  by Elrod on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 04:52:43 PM PDT