History, Trends and Future of Sectarian Violence and Civil War: What Should One Expect?
It seems that the ongoing clashes between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq have ‘inspired’ more cleavages between sects all over the Middle East.
Yesterday, 52 people were detained in Egypt for their alleged involvement of three days of religiously-motivated violence in the port city of Alexandria. These sectarian confrontations have led to the death of two people, Muslims and Coptic Christians clashed after a Coptic worshiper was stabbed to death in a church.
According to the Egyptian Ahram newspaper, Hosni Mubarak clearly condemned the clashes and stated that Egypt, ‘does not differentiate between Muslims and Christians,’ and moreover ‘such differences need to be eliminated for the sake of the country’s cohesion.’ The United States condemned the attacks and pressured Mubarak to take action. Mubarak clearly stated that the United States will not be involved in Egypt’s internal affairs but he also said that Egypt shares the same ideals of discipline, respect and civility as the US.
Sectarian violence in the Middle East and even elsewhere around the world has historically seen a number of trends:
1) History has taught its observers that minorities will always be oppressed. For example, those of non-Aryan origin (specifically Jews) were oppressed and murdered during Hitler’s reign and more recently Bosnians were oppressed by Serbs under the late Slobodan Milosevic. Currently, oppression of Shias by Sunnis in Iraq is on the rise.
2) From an objective perspective, oppression will never have a justifiable reason, in fact the reasons are usually macabre, morbid and inhumane. More importantly, the reasons are based on pure ‘difference.’ This difference can range from religious beliefs to skin color.
3) On a micro-level, sectarian violence (i.e. manifestations, clashes, riots etc.) tends to occur between the opposing classes of the proletariat (i.e. poor Egyptian Muslims and poor Coptic Christians). However, the bourgeoisie and aristocratic classes are involved once the violence reaches political proportions.
4) Sectarian violence has been a protagonist in instigating civil war (i.e. the Zulu Civil War of 1817-1819, the Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 etc.)
The four basic trends above have been salient in the history of the world’s sectarian violence and civil wars. These trends have certainly not halted and it is not apparent whether they will ever cease to exist.
In case of Egypt, poor economic conditions as well as illiteracy, lack of education and resources have been the main culprits in instigating meaningless violence between Muslims and Christians. These factors aforementioned also breed religious extremism. In essence, as I argued before in my previous post,
‘Democracy: Does It And Will It Work In the Middle East?’ wanna-be democratic countries such as Egypt and many others in the Middle East need to first work on basic issues plaguing their societies. If Egyptians are generally wealth off, there will be less inclination to waste time and effort to harass the minorities and cause an internal raucous.
The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq and Egypt should teach each of the country’s respective governments a lesson. The case in Egypt is much clearer: there are sporadic and futile clashes between Muslims and Christians (which are on the rise) that need to be adhered to before they are blown out of proportion. There are both short and long-term solutions.
First, on the short-term Mubarak needs to take a proactive stance and persecute perpetrators from both sects as well as call for religious unity. There needs to be a better understanding of co-existence and a need to cease any animosity. Rhetoric will not be sufficient to appease the Coptic Christians; more affirmative action needs to take place and this could be in the form of minority rights’ laws or protection laws for minorities.
Second, on the long-term Mubarak’s government (and its predecessors) needs to take a more profound effort in improving literacy rates and education levels in the country. This should be coupled with a realization that standards of living are improving. Thus, the economy needs to remove itself from stagnation and offer employment opportunities for youthful Egyptians which constitute the bulk of the population.
On the other hand, Iraq is still struggling to achieve any perceivable stability and this has led to an ongoing debate as to whether the country is in fact in civil war. Both Mubarak and the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal have declared that civil war is already under way. More importantly Iraq’s deputy interior minister as well as Prime Minister Iyad Allawi have also made similar statements stating that Iraq has been in such a state for a year.
However, the debate as to whether Iraq is in civil war has really detracted from what’s important. The current Iraqi administration should independently attempt to fill the cleavages between the Sunnis and Shias. Any further US involvement will exacerbate the situation. The Iraqi administration has acknowledged the problem (and that is the first and important step) but now it is time to take foreign-free measures to alleviate the problem.
Yesterday, 52 people were detained in Egypt for their alleged involvement of three days of religiously-motivated violence in the port city of Alexandria. These sectarian confrontations have led to the death of two people, Muslims and Coptic Christians clashed after a Coptic worshiper was stabbed to death in a church.
According to the Egyptian Ahram newspaper, Hosni Mubarak clearly condemned the clashes and stated that Egypt, ‘does not differentiate between Muslims and Christians,’ and moreover ‘such differences need to be eliminated for the sake of the country’s cohesion.’ The United States condemned the attacks and pressured Mubarak to take action. Mubarak clearly stated that the United States will not be involved in Egypt’s internal affairs but he also said that Egypt shares the same ideals of discipline, respect and civility as the US.
Sectarian violence in the Middle East and even elsewhere around the world has historically seen a number of trends:
1) History has taught its observers that minorities will always be oppressed. For example, those of non-Aryan origin (specifically Jews) were oppressed and murdered during Hitler’s reign and more recently Bosnians were oppressed by Serbs under the late Slobodan Milosevic. Currently, oppression of Shias by Sunnis in Iraq is on the rise.
2) From an objective perspective, oppression will never have a justifiable reason, in fact the reasons are usually macabre, morbid and inhumane. More importantly, the reasons are based on pure ‘difference.’ This difference can range from religious beliefs to skin color.
3) On a micro-level, sectarian violence (i.e. manifestations, clashes, riots etc.) tends to occur between the opposing classes of the proletariat (i.e. poor Egyptian Muslims and poor Coptic Christians). However, the bourgeoisie and aristocratic classes are involved once the violence reaches political proportions.
4) Sectarian violence has been a protagonist in instigating civil war (i.e. the Zulu Civil War of 1817-1819, the Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 etc.)
The four basic trends above have been salient in the history of the world’s sectarian violence and civil wars. These trends have certainly not halted and it is not apparent whether they will ever cease to exist.
In case of Egypt, poor economic conditions as well as illiteracy, lack of education and resources have been the main culprits in instigating meaningless violence between Muslims and Christians. These factors aforementioned also breed religious extremism. In essence, as I argued before in my previous post,
‘Democracy: Does It And Will It Work In the Middle East?’ wanna-be democratic countries such as Egypt and many others in the Middle East need to first work on basic issues plaguing their societies. If Egyptians are generally wealth off, there will be less inclination to waste time and effort to harass the minorities and cause an internal raucous.
The ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq and Egypt should teach each of the country’s respective governments a lesson. The case in Egypt is much clearer: there are sporadic and futile clashes between Muslims and Christians (which are on the rise) that need to be adhered to before they are blown out of proportion. There are both short and long-term solutions.
First, on the short-term Mubarak needs to take a proactive stance and persecute perpetrators from both sects as well as call for religious unity. There needs to be a better understanding of co-existence and a need to cease any animosity. Rhetoric will not be sufficient to appease the Coptic Christians; more affirmative action needs to take place and this could be in the form of minority rights’ laws or protection laws for minorities.
Second, on the long-term Mubarak’s government (and its predecessors) needs to take a more profound effort in improving literacy rates and education levels in the country. This should be coupled with a realization that standards of living are improving. Thus, the economy needs to remove itself from stagnation and offer employment opportunities for youthful Egyptians which constitute the bulk of the population.
On the other hand, Iraq is still struggling to achieve any perceivable stability and this has led to an ongoing debate as to whether the country is in fact in civil war. Both Mubarak and the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal have declared that civil war is already under way. More importantly Iraq’s deputy interior minister as well as Prime Minister Iyad Allawi have also made similar statements stating that Iraq has been in such a state for a year.
However, the debate as to whether Iraq is in civil war has really detracted from what’s important. The current Iraqi administration should independently attempt to fill the cleavages between the Sunnis and Shias. Any further US involvement will exacerbate the situation. The Iraqi administration has acknowledged the problem (and that is the first and important step) but now it is time to take foreign-free measures to alleviate the problem.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 12:23 PM
4 Comments:
A good starting point for a discussion. However, I slightly disagree with you, or better: would like to add to what you've been writing, in a couple of points (other than that this is truly an interesting piece).
It's not always so that there's a majority discriminating against a minority. Yes, very usually it is so but on the other hand we have very good examples of, for example, linguistic minorities being granted completely equal status with the linguistic majority in countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and Finland, to the extent that in these countries parts of the majority complain about too good a position for the minority. Then we of course also have the cases where truly secular and multiethnic states have no legal obstacles against the advancement of any group within the country. Individual racism and intolerance, of course, exists everywhere.
Might it be only a coincidence that as far as I'm concerned all the examples of this category I know are democratic Western countries?
Then we also have the cases where actually a minority has been oppressing the majority. Take apartheid era South Africa, the most famous of the examples, take special cases such as West Bank, and take all the failed African states where an ethnic group discriminates against the rest.
As far Iraq, am I right that actually the Sunnis are the minority and the Shia the majority? As we all know, the former discriminated against the latter under Saddam's regime.
The solution to solving tensions is in my opinion very simple: treat all citizens (and residents) equally, first as citizens, then only as members of a certain religion, ethnicity, national minority or else, if needed.
Sadly enough the Middle East is one of the worst regions in the world as what comes to following my ideal above, for example because of official and non-official restrictions imposed on minority religions unheard of in most democratic Western countries.
@European Observer. Thank you for your candid remarks.
The points you raised certainly add to the piece.
It is interesting to see how the cases where minorities oppressed the majority revolved around an a priori and 'anciently-embedded' derogatory antagonism. In other words, Africans were oppressed as slaves (yet there outnumbered the majority of Western and European countries at the time), the fact that the White man was more superior in terms of intelligence and advancement OVERCAME the fact that Africans were more in number. This managed to prevail in to Apartheid South Africa and after a visit in September 2002, I realized that there are still very clear remnants.
This is also true in the case of the Sunni minority and Shia majority in Iraq. Since disagreements occured over who should be the true Caliph after the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the Shia sect was created and they were immediately viewed as heretic by the Sunnis. Today, the Muslim world has approximately 15% Shia and 85% Sunni, regardless of their numbers, the Sunnis will always be seen as the 'White man.'
In theory, the solution you proposed is perfect however pragmatically it is quite difficult to implement. Such a solution will require years of changing traditions, ideals and a country's social equilibrium. For example, in theory Islam treats men and women equally, in fact the Koran states that 'mothers are above the heavens and that the heavens end at their feet.' The religion clearly promotes gender equality however a strict imposition of Islamic Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia has shown the world otherwise.
@sara and egypeter.
I've been following the constant rebuttal between both of you and I think that he discussion has detracted from whats important.
There needs to be open dialogue between Muslims and Coptics in Egypt. They need to both LISTEN to each other's concerns and find suitable compromises. As I tend to observe the issues discussed in this blog on a secular perspective, I have a 'middle-grounded' opinion on the issue.
I fully condemn any antagonistic attacks by Muslims and Coptics and the recent ones in Alexandria are absolutely appalling. They only reinforce a sense of backwardness and ignorance exhibited by extremist Muslims across the Middle East (and this has been clearly seen during the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH).
Thus the Egyptian government needs to teach the citizens (through public discourse and educational programs) the importance of co-existence for the sake of their well-being and standard of living. The government should try to remove the issue of religion from the discussion. This will be proven very difficult but it is not impossible.
Muslims and Coptics should be treated first as humans who are both Egyptian, not as humans which have different beliefs. Both sects should find similarities between themselves instead of pointing out the differences and causing a raucous about it.
Sara, instead of being narrow-minded and parochial towards those who criticize Islam, it is important to embrace them. It is important to understand why they criticize, for either ignorant or stereotypical reasons. If some thought is put in to it, you will realize that figures such as Osama bin Laden have completely tarnished the Muslim image all over the world - the average human tends to stereotype and will ignorantly believe that all Muslims worldwide are aggressive, uncompromising and backward.
Egypeter and other non-Muslims understand very well that this is certainly not the case. They are trying to reach out to moderate, progressive and liberal Muslims for decent discourse and discussion. Arguing over the number of Coptic Christians is not only futile but a complete waste of time.
As I argued in the post, a betterment of economic conditions in Egypt will improve inter-faith relations, naturally. Any myths created about one faith or the other should be completely debunked.
Coptic Christians have long been persecuted in Egypt and OFCOURSE they will seek the help of the church if the government is not willing to help, isn't this logical? If I was a member of a minority group in a country, I would do my best to empower myself or at least find a way to equate myself with the majority.
Egypeter and Sara, I honestly think any harsh and intimidating language is absolutely futile for discussion. Instead, a civil discourse searching for a pragmatic solution is more appropriate.
@Sara. The point of mentioning Osama Bin Laden is to show you how hollistically speaking, the image of Muslim is being distorted and tarnished. Moreover, the cause of my insetion of Osama Bin Laden is that he has recently issued another fatwa asking for Muslims to fight ANY NON-MUSLIMS around the world. That is why he is applicable to the situation in Egypt, Coptic Christians have become targets themselves.
This is happening in Egypt on a micro-level between Muslims and Copts. Again, eccentric, erratic and absolutely bigoted and irrational behavior by Muslim extremists has reinforced the Bin Laden-Muslim stereotype which the whole world is following.
I am not proposing a 'method' nor am I saying that my 'method' will work in Egypt. What I trying to allude is that Muslims HAVE BEEN BEHAVING VERY BADLY lately and this has been the case internally in Egypt, in Europe and other places around the world.
Egyptians should be EGYPTIANS FIRST before being Muslim or Christian and with a listening ear from the Muslims and patience from the Coptics - an eventual resolution could come in to place.
Post a Comment
<< Home