Two terms have reappeared in the Arab Media in recent weeks. Both terms have heavy political and ethnic connotations and are not familiar to westerners.
One is Sectarianism, a thinly veiled reference to the Shi’as, their actions and politics. It has been used extensively over the past years, and implies preference to one’s own sect, something that has been going on among all sects in the Middle East forever. Of course, all states in the region have their sectarian policies. Saudi Arabian and other Persian Gulf government policies are sectarian when they discriminate against the Shi’a or other minorities. They are also sectarian in some countries when they discriminates against the Shi’a plurality (Lebanon in the past) or majority (Bahrain to this day). The mullahs in Iran are following sectarian policies because I doubt that there are Sunnis in high positions of their government, for example. Iraq’s government was silently sectarian before the invasion of 2003. The term sectarian has already entered the American diplomatic and political lexicon. Congressmen who probably once had to look up its meaning now use the term freely even if they have not recently been to Baghdad. That is especially true if they have been to some other Arab capitals.
Shu’aubism is the other old-new term, and it is a less pleasant one. It comes from the Arabic word Sha’ab meaning ‘people’ or nation. It is a derogatory term, a xenophobic term that hints at unreasonable subversive inclinations, such as resentment of discrimination, and it contains strong implications of treachery. An Arab from the East is conditioned to immediately look around him for signs of a conspiracy whenever he hears the term. It is usually, but not always, used against minorities in Arab countries, especially Shi'as. It is conveniently vague, yet everybody in the region knows exactly what it means and who it refers to. It is a fourteen centuries old term that was used against anyone who was not part of the Arab tribal mainstream, in an ethnic or sectarian sense, but who aspired for equality. It is an ancient term but is now heavy with thinly veiled Nazi-type connotations- had Hitler known Arabic he would have used the term to refer to Jews and perhaps the resistence movements in occupied Europe. Just think, we would have had French, Greek, and Slavic Sh'aubis in the heart of Europe!!!
This term has been used in modern times extensively by the Ba’ath, by some pan-Arabist nationalists, and, more recently, by some Salafi Islamic fundamentalists and occasionally by ruling elites in the Persian Gulf when there are murmurs of local discontent. It is mostly, but not exclusively, used in its old historical sense, i.e. in reference to the Shi’as of certain Arab countries. Occasionally it has been used against other minorities, such as the Kurds of Iraq and the Berbers of North Africa.
The term has such negative and derogatory connotations that it has been almost dormant in recent years in most countries. However, in recent days some of the Arab media outlets, especially those based in Europe, have been re-introducing the term, some of them shyly but others not so shyly, mainly in reference to events in Iraq.
I wonder, will this term enter the American political-speak as well? Will we hear this term soon from some jet-lagged congressmen and other leaders?? Of course, pronouncing it correctly should be a challenge- it makes it almost worth the wait.
Cheers
Mohammed
No comments:
Post a Comment