Sectarianism: a basic definition is ‘Being ideologically in the confines
of one’s own sect’
This is a comment on an interview with MaxWeiss published on Jadaliyya around his book ‘In the shadow of
sectarianism’. It is not a comment
on his book of the same title.
Weiss :
« I suppose the central question at the heart of my book is: How did the Lebanese Shi`a become sectarian? »
The hypothesis, as it is stated, rests on one
of these two assumptions :
1)
Lebanese were sectarians and Shi'a
were not but became sectarians later.
2)
None of the Lebanese communities became sectarians, only Shi'a did.
From a methodological perspective, this is a
question that already contain an answer which validates the hypothesis that Shi'a sectarianism is to be treated separately from others.
But because it is impossible to treat the question of Shi'a sectarianism separately from others, Weiss is forced to formulate a secondary hypothesis which appears as an ad hoc hypothesis by stating that his study of Shi'a sectarianism is a case study
in sectarianism. This secondary ad hoc hypothesis is acceptable in itself but doesn’t fit well with the
main hypothesis as it is stated.
« Therefore, I concluded that there was some value in considering the institutionalization of sectarianism and Shi`ism together, as part of what might be called a sort of case study in the critical historical analysis of Lebanese sectarianism. »
Weiss couldn’t decide if his book is the
study of Shi’a sectarianism as a case study of sectarianism in Lebanon or a study of Shi’a sectariansim
without reference to other communities. In other words he is methodologically engaged, by definition, in studying sectarianism from a Shi'a sectarian perspective, within the confines of one sect.
The focal point of the book, Weiss
says, is:
« that the Shi`i community in Lebanon became sectarian—which for me also meant starting to practice being sectarian—during the period of French Mandate rule (1918-1943) »
This was the period of the institutionnalisation
of sectarianism in the Middle East for all sects under the French and
the English mandates which took territories from the defeated Ottoman empire as
‘sacred trusts’ and transformed them into countries. One Wonder what’s in the Shi’a sectarianism for Weiss?
Weiss is interested in Shi’a
sectarianism as sectarianism with regard to Sunnis, and not to other sects in Lebanon, something that he
doesn’t state openly in his interview but that is illustrated with a picture
showing religious dignitaries from both sects. Weiss situates the rise of Shi’a sectarianism around the French mandate but does not attribute it to the French mandate. Under the French mandate Shi’a assumed a more independant and
visible role than during the Ottoman empire when they were persecuted, forced to convert, and
displaced. Normally, this is where one should search for the
roots of Shi’a sectarianism. Maybe Weiss does tackle the question in his
book. But I found it strange
that there is not one occurrence for the word Sunni in Weiss’s interview in
Jadaliyya. I bet also that there
is very little in his book.
Ottoman rule was caracterised by religious
tolerance but certainely not at the end when European countries started waging
a war on the empire at its confines by heightening sectarian tensions. Was
the persecution of Shi’a the result
of this process?
Based on his argument that Shi’a sectarianism
developed under the French mandate but was not the result of the French mandate, Weiss argues that there is ‘sectarianisation
from below’ initiated by the
community, as opposed to ‘sectarianisation from above’ imposed by rulers. But by situating the start of Shi’a
sectarianism with the French mandate, he completely obliterates the fact
that what he calls ‘sectarianism from
below’ was provoked by persecutions before the French mandate which might be considered, in fact, as a sectariansim 'from above'. And while he absolves the French from being at the origins of Shi'a sectarianism we don't know if he does the same for other sects. It is notorious that the French are behind the structuring of the political system in Lebanon in a sectarian one and have played a role in the sectarianisation of the Shi'a 'from above' by instituting privileges for other sects.
But opening the question of Shi'a sectarianism to the
Ottoman period and to sectarianism among other sects under the French rule might weaken Weiss's argument for a 'sectarianism from
below'
What interests Weiss is modern history of Shi’a
in Lebanon and ‘Alawi in Syria (on whish he is writing a book), in other words,
the Gordian knot of the ‘Shi’a
crescent’
« By the time that Imam Musa al-Sadr arrived on the Lebanese scene in the late 1950s, therefore, a foundation for the mobilization of a specifically Shi`i politics was well in place. »
This is why he states that sectarianism,
particularly in this case, is:
« built upon and shored up by certain institutions and practices, which might include parochial schools, the allocation of political positions according to sectarian metrics, the primacy afforded to communal law courts over and above other jurisdictions, and a deeply divided media environment »
But when Musa al-Sadr
arrives on the 'Lebanese scene' there are no strong institutions for Shi'a or deeply divided media environement between Shi'a and Sunnis. At the time Shi'a called themselves Al-Mahroumin (The Deprived). Shi’a were battered by a border war
between Israel and the
Palestinians, forced to move again by Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and left
deprived by the state. Here
again, Weiss overlooks the persecution and deprivation factors in the
construction of sectarianism, and to take into account these two factors is to render the
distinction between ‘sectarianism from above’ and ‘sectarianism from below’
totally useless because persecutions and deprivations come from above.
And while
arguing that sectarianism could be ‘modified or undone’ he admits that once
enshrined in institutions,
« It will be difficult, if not impossible, to combat or even defeat sectarianism in all its forms without clear-eyed attention to the array of institutional venues in which sectarianism has been and continues to be produced, nurtured, and sustained. »
And here he warns about Iraq.
It is ironic
that at the end of the interview in which he lays out his argument about Shi’a
sectarianism, Weiss warns about Iraq.
Ironic because if there is a case for Shi’a secatarianism continually
and exclusively nurtured from above, either through the English mandate,
persecutions or, as of 2003, by an imposed ‘democracy’ without civil
institutions (or sectarianism from below), it can be found in Iraq. In fact Iraq might well be a perfect example of how
Europe and the West played the sectarian game to finish off the Ottoman empire
and how they continue to play it until today to further divide the remnants of
this empire. In the Middle East, it's been sectarianism 'from above' all the way from the fall of the Ottoman empire to the 'Arab Spring'.
By arguing
for a sectarianism 'from below’ Weiss is doing nothing more than an a
posteriori justification to the current western game of sectarianism in the
Middle East and his hypothesis is no more then a fallacy containing its own confirmation leaving out the main factors in the radicalisation of identities
around communities and sects; persecutions, deprivations and fear. The same is true of excessive privileges. Where Shi'a sectarianism have been provoked by persecutions, other sectarianisms were provoked by excessive privileges given from above. Sectarianism cannot be treated as a phenomenon of one sect only, it plants its roots wherever there is deep inequality elevating barriers between self and other and between communities.
Update: I found this review of Weiss's book by Alexander Henley There are at least two other reviews of this book and I will try to make them available on this post soon.
Update: I found this review of Weiss's book by Alexander Henley There are at least two other reviews of this book and I will try to make them available on this post soon.
P.S. Upon reading the interview, I was angry that not only Jadaliyya published an interview on a book that is a propaganda for US foreign policy among scholars and university students promoting sectarianism as part of who we are, but that they didn't bother asking the author questions that should have been asked. Weiss seems also incapable of speaking about the Middle East without the lens and language of sectarianism.
Since March 29th 2006