When politics becomes religious

Sunday April 27, 2003 When politics becomes religious The rather cold and distant reception for coalition troops in Basra a few weeks ago was a first indication that the liberation of Iraq might not result in the kind of democratic state envisioned by the Bush administration. Instead of welcoming the British and Americans as liberators, Iraqis invited coalition troops to return home. The demand was repeated Wednesday in Karbala when Iraqi Shiite Muslims displayed signs proclaiming the arrival of "Islamic Democracy" and repeating the invitation for Americans to go home. One sign read: "We refuse wardship, guardianship and Retired U.S. Gen. Jay Garner, who will occupation." Clearly, Shiite Muslims have a run different idea of what democracy would entail inpostwar Iraq, waves to a cheering crowd in the post-saddam Iraq. northern Iraqi city of Irbil. On Wednesday, thousands of Iraqi Shiite Muslims celebrated the Massacre at Karbala, performing the taziya rituals associated with a religious celebration prohibited by Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years. Shiite Muslims, many covered with white sheets symbolic of a death shroud, performed the once prohibited ritual that commemorates the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Shiites wearing the shrouds became living symbols of their willingness to die for their religion. The memory of Karbala and the massacre of Husayn are alive in the minds of modern Shiites. Muslims and Arabs have a better historical memory than Americans. I don't mean that Americans can't recall key events from the past. Instead, I refer to a collective memory that motivates people to political action. Once phrases such as "Remember the Maine" could move Americans to political action. Perhaps "Remember Sept. 11th" eventually will serve the same purpose. Most Americans don't remember the Maine at all. Its memory fails to stir any emotion whatsoever. In contrast "Remember Karbala" forms a core of political and religious consciousness that is still felt today in the Middle East even though the massacre occurred nearly 1,500 years ago. The wearing of the death shroud is a contemporary statement that, like Husayn, the modern Shiite is willing to die for a political cause. The martyrdom of Husayn is memorialized in poetry: What is raining? Blood. Who? The eyes. How? Day and Night. Why? From grief. Grief for whom? Grief for the King of Karbala. 1 of 5 6/26/10 6:13 PM

What happened at Karbala? Many enduring conflicts in history arose over the issue of succession to power. This happened in Islam as well. When Muhammad died in Mecca in 632 A.D., two opinions were voiced regarding his successor. One group advocated the election of a successor (called a Caliph in Arabic) from among the followers of Islam. This groups prevailed, and a man named Abu Bakr was the first Caliph in Islam. The fact that Abu Bakr was elected forms the basis of the current Muslim claim that they were democratic long before the United States existed. Another group of believers claimed that the Caliph must be related to Muhammad. They wanted Muhammad's son-in-law Ali to become Caliph. The appointment of Abu Bakr was viewed as the betrayal of Muhammad, and of Ali in particular. Supporters of Ali were known as the Party of Ali ("Shiat Ali" in Arabic) or simply "Shiites." Ali was killed by an assassin's poisoned knife in 661 A.D., and the emerging Shiites advocated succession passing to Ali's son Husayn. Husayn wanted to become Caliph, and left Mecca for Kufa (now in Iraq) in 680 AD to join Shiites there. His family and about 60 others went with him. His enemy, Caliph Yazid I, sent an army of about 4,000 to intercept Husayn. Yazid surrounded Husayn's party, cutting them off from access to water for eight days. Husayn, weak from thirst, mounted his horse on the eighth day intent upon attacking Yazid's army. Husayn was killed, and most of his family and followers were butchered as well. This is known as the Massacre at Karbala. Shiite Muslims (numbering about 100 million worldwide) view the celebration of the massacre as a tenet of faith. Every 10th of Muharram (according to the Muslim calendar) Shiites customarily re-enact events from the life of Ali and the martyrdom of Husayn. Some of the re-enactments are rather bloody and explicit, but all of them are regarded as expressions of the deepest faith. The sacrifice of one's life for belief is respected as the ultimate act of loyalty among Shiites,for the martyr is guaranteed entrance into Paradise. The Massacre at Karbala, ongoing martyrdom and true belief are celebrated in Shiite poetry, keeping the historical memory alive: The Hardship of martyrdom, listen, is a day of joy. Yazid has not got an atom of this love. Death is rain for the Children of Ali. The decision to be killed was with the Children of Ali from the very beginning. Karbala and political empowerment Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran understood the political potential of Karbala's cult of martyrdom, something that Americans did not (and do not) understand at all. This essay is in fact written in an effort to introduce readers to the implications of Karbala as America begins what could turn into a rather complicated occupation. The military defeat of Iraq, although it cost the lives of brave men and women, was the easy part of the "rebuilding" of the country. Now the hard part comes - the part that no regime has been able to accomplish in modern times - the attempt to politically unite the peoples of Iraq. 2 of 5 6/26/10 6:13 PM

A study of Khomeini's tactics indicates the immediate necessity of understanding Karbala and the Shiite political mindset. Khomeini and Karbala After the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran exiled Khomeini in 1964, Shiite Muslims suffered years of oppression. They waited patiently, following the example of Karbala - Husayn waited for eight days without water, enduring the oppression of Yazid. In the late 1970s, when the Shah's health began to fade and his grip weaken, Khomeini prepared to return from exile and establish an Islamic republic. Sensing a chain of events that would topple U.S. interests in Iran, President Jimmy Carter visited the Shah on Dec. 31, 1978. The show of American support for the Shah backfired in a series of popular protests. On Jan. 9, 1978, students at the university in Qum, Iran, protested for the return of Khomeini from exile. Police opened fire upon the crowd, killing as many as 70 students. Khomeini (still in exile) used the incident not only to call for the overthrow of the Shah, but as an example of how martyrs must be willing to die for the faith when combating non-islamic forces such as the Shah's regime and the United States as the Shah's main supporter. The Muslim month of Muharram and the celebration of the martyrdom at Karbala neared in December of 1978. On the day of Karbala's celebration, as many as 1 million people, many wearing the white death shroud, demonstrated against the Shah in Tehran alone. Other similar demonstrations took place throughout the country. The Shah's troops panicked and began firing on the unarmed demonstrators. By the end of the month, demonstrations were common as was the wearing of the white shroud. Reports of the demonstrations show that it was becoming common for youths in white to provoke soldiers deliberately in the hope of being shot. The theme of Karbala and martyrdom came to the foreground of Iranian Shiite consciousness. Predictably the shooting of unarmed youths caused a severe drop in morale, further weakening the Shah's power. By deliberately cultivating the martyrdom themes of Karbala, Khomeini was able to turn a political conflict into a religious one. The Shah was cast in the role of Evil, with his perceived henchman, the United States, appearing as the so-called Great Satan. Khomeini cast the demonstrators in the role of Husayn's family, massacred as martyrs at Karbala. Just as the blood of Husayn hallowed the ground at Karbala, so to did the blood of the new generation of religious heroes in Iran hallow the ground of their country. Demonstrators killed by the Shah were even buried in special cemeteries set aside for religious martyrs. The Iranian Revolution became in effect a gigantic Passion Play commemorating Karbala in real life. Although Khomeini successfully portrayed the United States to the people of Iran as the Great Satan, such an outcome can be avoided in Iraq. The Bush administration can draw upon the positive experiences with Islamic politics found elsewhere. Other Islamic states have formed stable governments using the religious values of Islam as core political values. The African nation of Senegal is an example of a positive Islamic political system. The influence of France on stable Islamic politics 3 of 5 6/26/10 6:13 PM

Many Muslim nations are politically stable. A few examples include Tunisia, Morocco and Senegal. All were former French colonies. In each colony colonial rule ended peacefully, and each of these countries enjoys a higher level of relative prosperity and political stability than its neighbors. What did the French do right? n France resisted the temptation to "nation-build" in these colonies, allowing their populations to develop their own unique governmental systems reflecting the values and attitudes of the native population. * France supported native leaders intent upon building a stable native government, incorporating ethnic minorities into the political system and allowing free expression of ideas and views. * France maintained and strengthened healthy economic ties, resisting the temptation to exploit native workers, which benefited both French traders and native merchants in a win-win fashion. * France didn't panic when these nations incorporated an Islamic component into their political and governmental structure. The existence of stable Muslim nations indicates that Iraq too can develop a stable political structure without abandoning Islamic values. This will only happen, however, if the Bush administration learns the lessons of the Iranian Revolution and reproduces the successes of the French. The lessons of Iran, the example of France There are several lessons to be learned from a study of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The United States unfortunately actively undermined democratic rule in Iran, particularly by reinstating the Shah to power in the 1950s and by supporting him in the face of continuous and intense unpopularity. By maintaining this unpopular regime and through direct military support, the United States was associated in the minds of Iranians with the suppression of their religion and of democracy in Iran. The current Bush administration advocates allowing Iraqis to choose their own form of government. The population of Iraq is 65 percent Shiite. There is a strong possibility that Iraqi Shiites will establish an Islamic republic, with clergymen assuming offices of significant responsibility. Most Americans would find it difficult to accept this outcome in light of their experience in Iran. If, however, the Iraqi people choose an Islamic form of government, would it be wise for America to intervene and prevent it? Having promised Iraq a government "of its own choosing," would it be wise to add the condition "so long as America likes it?" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "vetoed" the idea last Monday, stating that he flatly rejected the idea of an Islamic Republic in Iraq. He claimed that any such government would not be truly democratic. If the future of Iraq's form of government is to be democratic, it isn't up to Secretary Rumsfeld to decide whether or not Islam should figure prominently in the new government. It is up to the people of Iraq. 4 of 5 6/26/10 6:13 PM

The history of modern Iran indicates that the worst thing the United States could do is to intervene against the popular will of Iraqis in the "name of democracy." If Americans genuinely believe in democracy, then it's time to let freedom truly ring in Iraq by supporting moderate voices of all kinds, including Muslim clerics, by encouraging healthy trade partnerships and by building lasting ties of friendship. The passion of the Karbala celebration must not be turned into passion against America. Political differences must not be turned into religious conflicts. That could happen if the United States micro-manages the next government of Iraq, particularly if the United States is seen as anti-islamic. The last thing the United States needs is a confrontation with thousands of unarmed youths seeking death already wrapped in their martyr's shroud. Peck is a history professor at Brigham Young University-Idaho specializing in the modern Middle East. You can write to him at Brigham Young University-Idaho, Department of History, SMI 314, Rexburg, ID 83440-0830. 5 of 5 6/26/10 6:13 PM