It’s always interesting to note what country is typically ‘forgotten’ when listing the Arab countries that protests erupted in 2011.

Sunni-Shia unity in Bahrain

‘Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen…’

or ‘Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen…’

The geniuses amongst you will notice that Syria and Bahrain are included in one list, while excluded in the other. The unfortunate truth of the matter is, when speaking to many Arabs about the Arab Revolutions, they will often either exclude Syria or Bahrain.

Why? More often than not, sectarianism.

We have all heard it before; “The Bahrainis aren’t democrats! It’s just the Shia protesting so that they can take over the country and turn it into Iran!”

Or, you have it the other way around; “Syria isn’t a revolution! It’s just Saudi backed Salafis who want to kill all the Alawis and Christians!”

Those who peddle in sectarianism are often the worst hypocrites. Whilst railing against Saudi oppression on the Shia of Qatif or Bahrain, they will repeat similar sectarian narratives against protesters in Syria. And vice versa.

What is most tragic is that the people whose  lives are on the line in both countries do reject these claims and recognize that their struggle against dictatorship and tyranny is a universal fight. Within the Syrian refugee camps of Turkey the refugees were adamant that their revolution was not sectarian. The people of ‘Sunni’ Jisr al-Shughour said that the Alawis were their brothers and many were just as oppressed as any Sunni. In Yemen, I witnessed many protesters carrying the flags of both Bahrain and Syria, supporting both in their uprisings.

And yet some continue to be blinded by their prejudices.

Looking across the  so-called “Arab World”, it’s easy to see sectarianism rearing its ugly head again. As soon as the Americans ‘withdrew’ from Iraq late last year, the Iraqi coalition government set about dividing itself on largely sectarian lines. ‘Sunni’ Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi was accused of being behind bomb attacks, he responded by fleeing to Kurdish northern Iraq, and painted himself as a martyr in the face of Nouri al-Maliki, a ‘Shia’ who many see as Iran’s puppet. Worse followed, with the apparent al-Qaeda attacks on the 22nd December that killed 69 people.

It should be remembered that  al-Qaeda attacks in Iraq target both Shia and Sunni. A particularly inspiring story was that of two Sunni soldiers, Lieutenant Nazham Faleh and Private Ali Ahmed Sabah, who gave their lives protecting a crowd of Shia pilgrims from a suicide bomber. And when al-Qaeda in Iraq was at its strongest, it was the Sunni Awakening Councils that really brought it down.

This idea that because we belong to different sects or religions, and thus we must enter into perpetual conflict is completely wrong. Sectarian hatred of the other is not an inherent, primordial part of Arab society. Sure, in times of strife and war the chances of intercommunal violence can unfortunately increase, but this need not be the norm.

A person is not sectarian merely by being part of a certain sect nor is the existence of different sects in a society inherently a bad thing. Quite the opposite, when there is peace in such a society, it shows a society at its zenith, one where all opinions are accepted, allowed and flourish together. No doubt, sectarianism in its negative sense, during times of war, has led to some of the worst atrocities in modern Arab history.

Those who peddle in sectarianism are often the worst hypocrites. Whilst railing against Saudi oppression on the Shia of Qatif or Bahrain, they will repeat similar sectarian narratives against protesters in Syria. And vice versa.

As I have said, and despite it being the widely held opinion, sectarianism is not the historical norm. The medieval Arab world did not witness the massacres of ‘heretics’ that Europe committed. This was because the concept simply did not gain much attention. There was no Pope, no central authority to direct and fan such flames. The ‘Mihna‘ of the 9th century, where the Caliph attempted to get scholars to agree to a statement of be considered heretics, failed and banished the widespread use of the term, and its associate takfir, until the 18th-19th century.

Unfortunately, the emergence of certain groups in that period brought forward the concept of takfir, and we are saddled with the consequences today.

But let’s not pretend that the causes are only internal. It is no coincidence that sectarianism emerged stronger with the concept of the nation-state. The colonial powers that directly established artificial states like Lebanon and Iraq employed old tricks like divide-and-rule (tricks that continue to this day – see post-war Iraqi Governing Council). The mentality of many of these colonialists can really be summed up in the words of a Jesuit missionary, Riccadonna, in 19th century Mount Lebanon, who disparaged the neighbourliness between Christian and Muslim villagers:

And that, to Mr. Riccadonna, was a bad thing.

It need not be this way. Sectarianism, the kind that is one of the many obstacles against an Arab nation from uniting and advancing, is a cancer that must be fought. And if you are one of the hypocrites that disagree with the freedom of others because of their sects, then shame on you.

Related posts:

1. Let’s Talk About (Self-)Sex(ing) Baby!
2. Sectarianism as the exercise of authority
3. Our Failure with Bahrain
4. Ain’t No Sleepin’ in Manama
5. Social Unrest in Syria: All Talk?