An American Spring

Prelude

January 2009. Barack Hussein Obama has just been inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States of America. He is the first African American president ever, and—to add shock to disbelief—with a name that has zero connection to the English language.

For millions of people, it is a time of hope and relief; it also is a time of anxiety and uncertainty. The country is in turmoil brought about by a combination of disillusionment abroad and financial crisis at home. The American people appear to have decisively repudiated costly foreign military adventures overseas, while at home, panic struck Wall Street, reeling under one financial scandal after another courtesy of a combination of reckless speculation, greed, and outright fraud. Unemployment has skyrocketed, homeowners have defaulted on their mortgage payments, the stock market has taken a nosedive, and the banking system has all but declared bankruptcy.

Along comes a new US president, fresh from a convincing victory in a highly emotional electoral campaign. He would recall the US troops from the treacherous Middle East, spare no effort to rescue Main Street, and see to it that the days of shady business transactions on Wall Street are gone forever. POTUS is an outstanding orator; he inspires the masses as befits a true leader. In no time he would deliver an eloquent speech in Cairo calling for a new beginning and reaching out to a suspicious and understandably hostile Muslim world. So high are the expectations this young and handsome leader arouses that he would soon receive the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, therefore joining distinguished predecessors such as Dr. Kissinger, President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin of Israel, and PLO Chairman Arafat, among others.

The dust of euphoria has eventually settled, however, and some more controversial moves by the president start to raise at least a few eyebrows. One of his first initiatives was to bail out Wall Street with hundreds of billions of dollars, those very same banks and insurance companies that brought about the financial ordeal to start with. Justification? They're “too big to fail”. He, of course, tries to help homeowners and the unemployed, but his efforts in this regard are quite timid and hesitant. Even his much-flaunted Affordable Health Care appears way too cumbersome and virtually perpetuates the reign of the health insurers and the medical-pharmaceutical complex. Still more worrisome, the interracial divide appears to tenaciously live on, the incarceration rate is alarmingly high, allegations of police brutality are all over the media, and the immigration mess—legal and illegal—is as intractable as ever... Add to all that violence, inner-city poverty, the crumbling infrastructure, the collapsing public school system, and the exorbitant cost of higher education; the list goes on and on.

The American people are angry and frustrated; men are particularly fed up with the two-party system and the mainstream media; many have already turned to the social media made possible by the explosion of information technology. Before you know it, peaceful demonstrations erupt in several places across the country, and crowds start chanting, “The people want to dismantle the regime!”

We have always been a nation of law and order. Chaos shall not be tolerated. The National Guard is ordered to intervene to enforce the peace of the land. It is inevitable that an altercation or two take place between the unarmed demonstrators and the not-so-unarmed police along with vigilantes popularly called "Shabbiha." Regrettably, few casualties result, and finger-pointing ensues. Anger mounts, and the crowds swell. The president is accused of “killing his own people.” It is not at all helpful at this juncture for the Chinese and Russian ambassadors to travel the width and breadth of the nation to urge the rioters to resist and to assure them that China and Russia are firmly on their side in their just quest for freedom and democracy; unfortunately, this is exactly what they did!

Next come outside opportunists; Russian TV and even the BBC initiate round-the-clock inflammatory coverage of what they describe as an “American Spring.” They provide the rebels with a free podium to air their views without the semblance of cross-examination. They seize on real as well as imaginary grievances that no country is free of. They convince all US-born Americans of the necessity of ridding their beautiful country of the blood-sucking immigrants; they remind African Americans of centuries of slavery and racial discrimination perpetrated by Caucasians; they turn North against South, Black against Hispanic, poor against rich, city dwellers against countrymen, Amerindians against those of European stock, Evangelicals against Catholics, Muslims against Hindus…

Evidently one can't turn a blind eye to police brutality against civilian protestors. Along come Canada and Mexico to the rescue. Refugees pour north and south, and camps are established across the borders to train and arm Freedom Fighters, after carefully vetting them to weed out the extremists, needless to say. Democracy lovers from all over the world flock to the USA via land and sea to wage a holy crusade against tyranny and oppression. The United Nations Security Council meets to debate a no-fly zone over America to create “safe corridors” for non-combatants fleeing violence. The vote is almost unanimous but for the perfidy of two permanent members who had the audacity to deploy their veto, thereby denying US rebels the liberty they so desperately seek. Not one nation has even considered mediating between the warring parties. After all, how can you negotiate with baby killers and terrorists?!

In a nutshell, four years of incessant strife have desolated the US homeland, claimed millions of lives, displaced tens of millions of innocent civilians, destroyed decades ' investment in infrastructure, wasted trillions of dollars, virtually divided the country across racial and sectarian lines, and spread poverty and famine from coast to coast. Erasing the effects of such a catastrophe would require a generation or two, under optimal circumstances.

The Real World

Luckily the US is not even close to imagining the possibility of such a cataclysm, and I hope my children and grandchildren never live to witness such a day. Still, this scenario is neither imaginary nor far-fetched, as would testify anyone who currently lives through what passes for a Syrian Spring or who has survived the Libyan Spring or the Yemeni Spring... Just swap Obama for Assad, the USA for Syria, China and Russia for the USA and France, and RTV and BBC for Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya... Of course, many other changes need to be done given the numerous and monumental differences between the mighty United States and puny countries like Syria or Libya.

Indeed, the comparison appears preposterous at first sight: there exists a tremendous gap between those countries at almost every level: political, cultural, financial, scientific, religious, etc. Still, the only difference that counts at the end of the day is MIGHT, to put it bluntly.

For no country is liberal enough, peaceful enough, democratic enough, prosperous enough, tolerant enough, educated enough, or homogeneous enough...to withstand a barrage of propaganda, money, weapons, armed men, and foreign meddling all aimed at it from so many regional as well as global powers.

You can “liberate” Iraq, for instance. Liberating a country like China is altogether a different undertaking, and this has zero relation with who is “democratic” and who is not or who is “free” and who is not. An Iraqi “Spring” is therefore far more likely than a Chinese one, and a corollary to this statement is that we are not likely to experience an American Spring anytime soon, no matter how good or bad a US president is or what the contradictions inside US society might be. America is simply too powerful for anyone to mess with. Not only are US domestic affairs off limits, but the Western Hemisphere in its entirety is a forbidden land. Interfere at your own risk, as the Soviets found out during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 60s. The Monroe Doctrine applies to the American continent north and south, not just the USA.

When a Spartan king was asked how far Sparta’s borders reached, he held out his spear and said, “As far as this will reach.”

الخيار البديل

يحنّ الكثيرون من السورييّن اليوم إلى ماضٍ مثاليّ مزعوم عاش فيه الشعب ناعماً آمناً في كنف الحريّة والديمقراطيّة والرخاء. دامت هذه الجمهوريّة الفاضلة منذ أن استقلّت سوريّا عام ١٩٤٦ حتّى انقلاب الثامن من آذار ١٩٦٣، أو على الأقلّ حتّى الوحدة مع مصر في شباط ١٩٥٨، ثمّ أتت سنوات الطغيان والقمع والفساد والمحسوبيّة والطائفيّة التي أوصلت الوطن إلى الوضع الحزين الذي يعيشه الآن. 

هذه وجهة نظر كغيرها و يمكن مناقشتها. على سبيل المثال كانت الخمسينات فترة إنقلابات عسكريّة وكان الجيش هو القوة الحاكمة سواءً مباشرة (الشيشكلي) أم من خلف الكواليس (عبد الحميد السرّاج) وكانت سوريّا حلبةَ صراع بين محور القاهرة - الرياض من جهة، ومحور بغداد - عمّان من جهة ثانية كما شرح پاتريك سيل في كتابه الشهير "الصراع على سوريّا". مع ذلك لنسلّم جدلاً أنّ الجمهوريّة السوريّة كانت جنّة الله على الأرض تحت حكم أعيان المدن و أنها كانت تعيش عهداً ذهبيّاً لم تعرفه البلاد منذ أيّام الأموييّن والخلفاء الراشدين، ما هي الخيارات في الوقت الحاضر؟

هَب أن حكومة الأسد سقطت غداً، من سيشغل فراغ القوّة الناجم؟ 

١. يحلم البعض بعودة قدّيسي الأربعينات والخمسينات: آل العظم، القوّتلي، الأتاسي، الجابري، الشيشكلي، البرازي، مردم بك، وهلمّجرّا... هذا إن لم يكن مستحيلاً فهو شبه مستحيل. إذا حالف سوريا الحظ سيقودها في القرن الحادي والعشرين أبو محمّد الجولاني، أبو بكر البغدادي، أبو عمر الشيشاني، أبو بصير الطرطوسي، أبو الفرج الليبي، إلى آخره...

٢. على علّات الخيار السابق يبقى أفضل من الفوضى والحرب الأهليّة إلى ما لا نهاية والتي لا تزعج أحداً في العالم إلّا السورييّن والذين يستقبلون المهجّرين السورييّن. 

٣. تقسيم سوريّا وارد طبعاً ولكن قلّما جرى تقسيم دون سفك الدماء. عمليّةٌ كهذه تحتاج على الأغلب إلى سنواتٍ وسنوات من الاقتتال والتهجير والدمار والتطهير العرقي والديني قبل رسم حدود جديدة.

بعد التفكير العميق لربما كان العهد العروبي ليس على هذه الدرجة من السوء. 

كتاب الغادري الأسود في حقيقة عبد الناصر

أجهز انقلاب عبد الكريم النحلاوي في الثامن والعشرين من أيلول سپتمبر عام ١٩٦١ على الوحدة السوريّة المصريّة التي دامت ثلاث سنوات ونصف بحلوها ومرّها، وتلتها فترة ما سمّي بمفعولٍ رجعي بالانفصال، تحّول فيه الإقليم الشمالي للجمهوريّة العربيّة المتّحدة إلى الجمهوريّة العربيّة السوريّة.

دام عهد الانفصال عاماً ونصف العام تحوّل فيها جمال عبد الناصر بقدرِة قادر من بطل أمّة العرب المزعومة إلى طاغيةٍ مستبدّ، أو هذا على الأقل ما زعمه الصحافي السوري نهاد الغادري في كتابه "الأسود في حقيقة عبد الناصر".

يمكن الاستدلال من عنوان الكتاب أنّه ليس عملاً مهنّياً أو سرداً تاريخيّاً. لم يجشّم الغادري نَفْسَهُ عناءَ المقارنة بين إيجابيّات الوحدة و سلبيّاتِها مكتفياً بهجومٍ عاطفي على عبد الناصر وترديد أقوال أعدائِهِ دون أدنى محاولة لذكر المصدر أو المصادر. على سبيل المثال و ليس الحصر:

١. عبد الناصر اضطّهد الشيوعييّن (صحيح دون أدنى شكّ) وقام زبانيةُ عامِلِهِ في سوريّا، عبد الحميد السرّاج، بقتل فرج الله الحلو وتذويب جثّتِهِ بالأسيد. ليس في نيّتي الدفاع لا عن عبد الناصر ولا عن السّراج ولكن لماذا الأسيد وهو باهظ الثمن ولا لزوم له في وقت ندر فيه من يتجاسر على مفاتشة السرّاج في الإقليم الشمالي؟ ما هي قيمة حياة إنسان واحد لدى رجل المخابرات الأوّل في سوريّا وقتها؟ بالطبع ليست الرواية بالمستحيلة وأعلم جيّداً أنّها موجودة في روابط لا تحصى على الشبكة ولكن هل هناك من حاول التحقّق من أصلِها؟ 

٢. عبد الناصر كان عميلاً للمخابرات المركزيّة الأمريكيّةّ! الدليل؟ أدخل الزعيم المصري مجلّة المختار (ريدرز دايجست) إلى بلادِهِ لتبثّ سمومَها. تجدر هنا الإشارة إلى أنّ الدخول الأوّل للمختار إلى مصر والعالم العربي كان عام ١٩٤٣ عندما كان اسم عبد الناصر مجهولاً بالكليّة. 

٣. عبد الناصر اشترى الصحافة اللبنانيّة: أنيس فريحة مثلاً، الذي نسب إليه الغادري القول بعد أن قبض المعلوم: "أبو خالد لعينيك، لبنان كلّو بين رجليك!" لا أعلم كم كان باستطاعة عبد الناصر أن يدفع لشراء الذمم في لبنان وغير لبنان وما أعلمهُ يقيناً استحالة منافسة المال المصري للخليجي في عهد النفط. 

إلى آخر التفاهات والترّهات.

يقول المثل الشامي: "موت يا أبي وشرّفني قلّو ليموت مين يعرفني". فلنقفز أربعين سنة إلى الأمام ونتعرّف على زعيم "حزب الإصلاح السوري" فريد الغادري، ابن الوطني الغيّور نهاد الغادري. شكّل الغادري الصغير حزبَهُ في أمريكا في بداية القرن الحادي والعشرين بهدف "تحرير سوريّا" من حكم البعث والأسد بمعونة نفس الولايات المتّحدة التي اتّهم أبوه عبد الناصر بالعمالة لمخابراتِها. ذهب فريد أبعد من ذلك إذ أدرك منذ البداية أن الطريق إلى قلب أمريكا يمر من إسرائيل، تماماً كما يمرّ طريق المرأة إلى قلب الرجل من معدته، وكما يمرّ طريق تحرير فلسطين عبر أكثر من عاصمةٍ عربيّة. بناءً عليه كان فريد في طليعة من زار إسرائيل ذاهباً إلى درجة نصْحِها (وكأنّها تحتاج إلى النصيحة) بعدم إعادة الجولان إلى سوريّا طالما كان الأسد على رأس حكومتها. 

لم يكن هناك نقصٌ في العرب المتعاملين مع إسرائيل في يومٍ من الأيّام بدايةً من الهاشمييّن في الأردنّ ومروراً بالكتائب اللبنانيّة ونهايةً بعرب الخليج وعلى رأسِهم الإمارات وقطر، بيد أنّ تبادل الحبّ والغرام مع إسرائيل علناً كان من المحرّمات حتّى زيارة السادات إلى القدس عام ١٩٧٧ وكانت تهمة العمالة لأمريكا تكفي للطعن بمصداقيّة أي زعيم عربي. نستطيع دوماً في هذا الصدد الاستشهاد بكتاب نهاد الغادري "الأسود"، الذي غازل ابنه فريد إسرائيل بعد أربعين سنة على عينك يا تاجر لا بل واستعداها على سوريّا دون ذرّةٍ من الحياء أو الخجل. الأنكى من ذلك أن أمثال فريد الغادري تكاثروا إلى درجةٍ مشينةٍ و مخزية مع بداية ما سمّي تجاوزاً بالربيع العربي.

البديهيّات التي اتّفقت عليها الغالبيّةُ العظمى من السورييّن ممنّ سعوا إلى الوحدة مع مصر قبل ثلاثة أجيال أصبحت مثاراً للهزء والسخرية في مطلع القرن الحادي و العشرين، والذين كانوا يتهرّبون من تهمة العمالة لأمريكا أو يتّهمون خصومَهم بالعمالة لها أصبحَ أولادُهم يخطبون ودّها عبر تلّ أبيب. 

حبوب منع النفاق

يعود المسلسل المصري أرض النفاق إلى العام ١٩٧٥ وهو متوافر على اليوتوب لمن لديه نوستالجيا لكوميديا القرن الماضي. أبطالُهُ مجموعةٌ من النجوم بينهم فؤاد المهندس، صفيّة العمري، نبيلة السيّد، ونظيم شعراوي. لعب هذا الأخير دور وكيل الوزارة الفاسد أحمد بيه الجمّال والقصة بالمختصر المفيد أنّ الدكتور باهر (حسن عابدين) اخترع "حبوب منع النفاق" التي بمجرّد أن يتناولها المنافق يصبح صادقاً و صريحاً إلى درجة الوقاحة كما حصل لنادل المقهى الذليل حليشة (فاروق علي) الذي تحول من مداهنة الزبائن بأخسّ العبارات إلى قولِ رأيه الحقيقي فيهم لا بل وإهانتهم. جرّب فؤاد المهندس (الأديب حامد عبد السلام) حبوب الدكتور باهر على أكثر من شخص ولم تكن النتائج دائماً إيجابيّة وكما قال رئيس وزراء إنجلترا السابق ونستون تشرشل: "تحتاج الحقيقة إلى جيشٍ من الأكاذيب لحمايتها".  

النفاق مجبولٌ في طبيعة البشر وهناك حالة خاصّة منه متفشّية على طول وعرض الوطن العربي المزعوم مفادُها تملّق الحاكم وعبادة الفرد. من البدهي أنّ هذه الظاهرة قديمةٌ للغاية منذ أيام النابغة الذبياني وعلي بن الجهم، إن لم نقل منذ أيام الإله-الملك فرعون. لا تزال هذه العادة حيّةً في أوج عنفوانها في مطلع القرن الحادي و العشرين وإن تغيّر أسلوب الأداء مع ارتقاء التقنيّة: قديماً كان اختصاص المداهنة حكراً على الكّتاب والشعراء أمّا اليوم فلدينا أيضاً المغنّين والملحّنين والفرق الموسيقيّة ناهيك عن الصحف والإذاعة والتلفزيون والأقمار الصناعيّة والشبكة العنكبوتيّة. علاوة على كلِّ ذلك زاد عدد الناس كثيراً و أصبح إنزال حشودٍ غفيرة إلى الشوارع وتسجيل مسيراتها وهتافاتها "العفويّة" بالصوت والصورة في حيّز الإمكان.

هذا لا يعني بالضرورة أنّ كل من نَظَمَ شعراً وكلّ من غنىّ لحاكمٍ منافقٌ ومنتفعٌ. على سبيل المثال كان شاعر دمشق العظيم نزار قبّاني ناصريّاً على حياة عبد الناصر و أصبح أكثر ناصريّةً بعد موت هذا الأخير، بيد أنّ أمثال نزار قليلون. بالمقابل ما أكثر نموذج أصالة نصري التي غنّت "حماك الله يا أسدُ فداك الروحُ و الجسدُ" قبل أن ينزل عليها الوحي وتباشر بتمسيح الجوخ لملك البحرين على مبدأ "من تزوّج أمّي فهو عمّي". أصالة بالطبع غيضٌ من فيض ويبقى مطرب وملحّن مصر العملاق محمّد عبد الوهّاب من أكبر المداهنين في تاريخ الشرق الأدنى ولعشرات السنوات، إن لم يكن أكبرهم على الإطلاق.

أُطْلِقَ على عبد الوهّاب في النصف الأول من القرن العشرين لقب "مطرب الملوك" ولم يكن في هذا أي مبالغة كونه غنّى لملك العراق فيصل الأوّل، وعاهل مصر فاروق، وباني السعوديّة عبد العزيز قبل أن "يهتدي" ويشدو لعبد الناصر والثورة إلى أن أصبح ساداتيّاً ونال رتبة جنرال مكافأةً على تزلّفِهِ. 

مع ذلك يبقى عبد الوهاب مبدعاً حتى عندما يمارس النفاق الرخيص كما فعل في أغنية "أنشودة الفنّ" الجميلة التي غنتها أيضاً ليلى مراد بصوتها العذب. هكذا خاطبَ عبد الوهّاب الملك فاروق:

الفنّ مين يوصفه إلّا اللّى عاش فى حماه

والفنّ مين يعرفه إلّا اللّى هام فى سماه

والفنّ مين أنصفه غير كلمة من مولاه

والفنّ مين شرّفه غير الفاروق ورعاه

إنت اللّى أكرمت الفنّان ورعيت فنّه

ردّيت له عزّه بعد ما كان محروم منّه

ورويت فؤاده بالألحان برضاك عنّه

ما أحوج العالم بأسْرِهِ إلى الدكتور باهر وحامد عبد السلام وحبوب منع النفاق. 

On Islamic Tolerance

Bilāl the Abyssinian was a Companion of Prophet Muḥammad and Islam's first muezzin. His tomb—if we are to believe popular tradition—is located at Bāb aṣ-Ṣaġīr's ancient cemetery in Damascus, the alleged resting place of several holy men and women, including the first Umayyād Caliph Muʿāwīyā; Um Ḥabībā, daughter of Abu Sufīān and one of Muḥammad's numerous wives; Fāṭimā, the daughter of Imam Ḥusayn; etc. There exists, needless to say, no shortage of ancient mausoleums in and around Damascus; heck, I personally paid a visit to what passes for Abel's tomb many years ago.

Whether or not those graveyards host the remains they claim to, whether or not those men or women ever set foot in Damascus, and if they existed at all, is not the subject of this post. Various Muslim countries may dispute the honor of possessing the relics of this or that saint; the Wahhābis may reject necropolis wholesale and frown at tomb visitation; but the aura surrounding those people, their lives, and their achievements is seldom debated. Their biographies have meticulously been collected, “authenticated,” commented, and adopted by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide from time immemorial.

Bilāl was one of Islam's first martyrs (so were ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir and his ilk, but that's another story). Every Muslim knows how he eagerly adopted the Mohammedan faith when the believers were a tiny minority and how much he suffered for it. Bilāl was a slave of the cruel ʾUmayyā ibn H̱alaf, who was, along with Abu Ǧahl and Abu Lahab, one of Islam's deadliest enemies and a member of a powerful Qurayšite clan. The ruthless ʾUmayyā was hellbent on reclaiming his renegade slave to the old pagan faith, and towards that purpose, he'd put steadfast Bilāl to all kinds of torture, such as having the martyr lie down on burning desert sand with a heavy stone placed on his chest as to bring him to the verge of suffocation. Bilāl adamantly refused to renounce the one-and-only true faith, of course, and somehow survived the greatest ordeal of his life to the great relief of the Community of the Faithful. He went on to become Islam's first muezzin, and his beautiful voice is the stuff of legends.

The Forces of Darkness met their first defeat at the hands of the Muslims in the Battle of Badr. It was a day of reckoning for ʾUmayyā ibn H̱alaf, who was captured by ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, a companion of the Prophet Muḥammad and one of the ten to whom Paradise was promised. Bilāl sighted his old nemesis "the enemy of Allah" in shackles, helpless and defeated, and lost no time slaying him despite the vociferous protestations of ibn ʿAwf, who had pledged to spare ʾUmayyā's life.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Bilāl and ʾUmayyā are indeed historical figures and that the above narrative is truthful—for the sake of this post, the veracity of the above narrative or the lack thereof is irrelevant since Muslims treat it as bona fide history of which they are proud—I find this anecdote particularly illuminating. The savage ʾUmayyā may have tortured Bilāl, but HE DID NOT KILL HIM when he could have easily done it with precisely zero accountability. On the contrary, it was Bilāl who needlessly butchered a captured ʾUmayyā who was no longer capable of hurting him or anyone; worse, he committed the deed despite the fact that his erstwhile tormentor was under the protection of another companion of the Prophet, just like himself.

To the Muslims, the martyr was Bilāl the executioner, not the victim he slew! This is almost as comical as the "martyrdom" of Basil al-ʾAsad, though in the latter case it was not about good versus evil, merely a tragic car accident transformed by obsequious media into an occasion to shed crocodile tears in order to curry favor with the ruler, just as their ancestors did under the French and before that the Ottomans.

Bilāl's was by no means a unique example. An even more egregious insult to common sense was the treatment the Muslims inflicted on the Jews of Medina, exiled, murdered, or enslaved to the last man and woman and yet perversely accused of “plotting” against the Muslim community in cahoots with “pagan” Qurayš. Even were this to be true, that is, that some of them did indeed conspire against Muḥammad, would that justify such a brutal and collective punishment? (Saʿd ibn Muʿāḏ notoriously advised Muhammad to kill Banū Qurayẓā's men and enslave the women and the children, and the Prophet concurred). Once again, one can't but marvel at the ease with which credulous Muslims have always accepted at face value that the Jews of Medina were the villains of the story and amply deserved their grim fate and much more.

There exists no shortage of such tales throughout history, of course, and they're by no means restricted to Christianity or Islam. There is one major difference, however: Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, and European powers may commit atrocities on a large—sometimes genocidal—scale, but criticizing them and denouncing their crimes is perfectly permissible. This is true particularly for events that are ancient history (many choose to refrain from condemning powerful nations or leaders who could silence and kill their opponents). It is legitimate to point to the massacres committed by, say, Alexander the Great in Tyre; exposing Genghis Khan for the mass murderer he was is perfectly alright; Hitler remains the ultimate impersonation of pure evil for many. 

Highlighting misdeeds of prophets and their companions, objectively pointing to the crimes committed by organized religion, and subjecting pious criminals to the same scrutiny one does secular leaders are an altogether different story. Do that at your own risk and blame no one but yourself for the consequences.

As George Orwell would say, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. At least as far as monotheism and its bogus martyrs go. 

On Christian Tolerance

Marcus Vinicius was a Roman patrician who fell in love with a beautiful Christian maiden named Ligia. Their romance is prominently featured in Henryk Sienkiewicz' historical novel Quo Vadis, subsequently adapted by Hollywood in 1951 in an epic movie.

Vinicius was young, dashing, handsome, and fabulously wealthy. He was also a pagan who knew next to nothing about the then-new Christian faith prior to meeting the love of his life. Ligia returned his affection but had to restrain her feelings until their union could be sanctioned by the Holy Church. The young lovers lived during the reign of Nero, the infamous Roman Caesar whose assistance was initially sought by Vinicius to help win Ligia's hand, and eventually her heart.

Vinicius spared no effort to woo Ligia. When he found out that she was Christian, he proposed to add Jesus to the gods of his household in order to please her; after all, what harm could result from one extra deity when there already existed so many who had somehow been getting along from time immemorial? The devout lass was horrified by this proposal, as would be expected given her fiercely monotheistic faith. Luckily for them, the conclusion of their passionate attachment was a happy one, and Vinicius ended up adopting the faith of his beloved but not before witnessing the genocidal massacre of her coreligionists by the monstrous Nero.

History is unkind to losers, and Nero was no exception. The bulk of what is known about him was transmitted by his enemies, from murdering his mother Agrippina all the way to “fiddling while Rome burns” then blaming the catastrophe on the Christians and sending them to be devoured by wild beasts in his circuses. While Nero most certainly was no saint—saints seldom if ever make successful emperors—he was very unlikely the ogre his biographers would have you think. As for the butchery to which he subjected the Christians, it is virtually certain that it was wildly exaggerated, if not altogether made up.

For Rome of the 1st century CE was unlikely to host significant numbers of Christians. Arguably the entire Roman Empire at the time had very few Christians, way too few to provide for a gory spectacle in the spacious Roman circuses for Rome's heathen spectators. In a nutshell, if Nero had heard about the Christian faith at all, he in all probability hardly gave it a thought. He had too many powerful foes to waste his time oppressing a harmless and obscure minority.

This is not to say that the Christians endured no persecution under the Romans. They suffered under Decius and Diocletian, but that was 200 years after Nero, by which time the new faith was firmly established and patiently anticipating its triumph with the Edict of Milan under Constantine the Great. Paganism was to make a final desperate reaction under Julian the Apostate in the second half of the fourth century CE, but that was essentially it. The old gods had to yield to Christ as pagans joined the new faith en masse, preferably of their own free will or—if necessary—by brutal force. Jupiter's temples were transformed into churches and cathedrals or demolished wholesale; old gods morphed into Christian saints; and Vestal Virgins became nuns. It is well established that by the time of Theodosius the Great, it was the turn of Paganism to be persecuted by the turn-the-other-cheek Christians! So thoroughly did the Christians hound the adherents of the old faith that they'd soon run out of them and turn their weapons against each other in a long and forlorn struggle to define orthodoxy and identify what each sect considered to be the authentic form of Christianity.

Back to Ligia and Vinicius. The young man was more than willing to accommodate Jesus in his pantheon, but the lovely young woman was too pure and too jealous of her God to tolerate any other deity, however much she loved her suitor. It does not take too much imagination to extend the comparison to polytheism versus monotheism, the first by definition far more tolerant than the second no matter what the followers of the latter proclaim.

And yet it's all about the suffering of the monotheists. No one cares for or talks about martyrs for Paganism. It is taken for granted that polytheism is bad and monotheism is good; the latter is logical and the former is not; faith in the old gods equals superstition, whereas faith in one God is somehow scientific. To add insult to injury is the presumptuous claim of the victimizer that he was tormented and persecuted by none other than his victim.

If indeed the early Christian communities were oppressed by ruthless heathens from Nero to Julian (spanning 300 years), wouldn't one expect the Christians to be exterminated rather than the other way round? Did Christianity employ purely peaceful means in its relentless conquest of the world? How exactly did Charlemagne convert the Saxons? The Europeans preached Jesus to the Native Americans and Africans? And let's not go into the Crusades.

A victor needs not apologize for his triumph; legions of scholars would happily justify his most unjustifiable excesses. Volumes would be written to whitewash every crime, rationalize every absurdity, make sense out of utter nonsense, smear each and every opponent, and brainwash one generation after another into docile obedience.

Some may proudly point out how tolerant modern “Christian” Europe and America are, but this is false: the West is tolerant because it is secular, because of its separation of church and state. The Christian West was never tolerant, not only of Jews and Muslims but also of “different” Christians. In Spain it was the Inquisition, in France the massacre of the Huguenots, in Britain the persecution of the Catholics and the Puritans, etc....

The notion of a “tolerant monotheistic faith” is an oxymoron.

From the Umayyad to the Alawites, on the History of Sectarianism in Syria

The advent of the internet opened a virtually limitless access to information for anyone who could read; the explosion of social media opened a worldwide forum to exchange thoughts, ideas, and data in the form of user-friendly links that magically pop up with a mere click, the way Aladdin used to summon his genie by rubbing his legendary lamp. Anyone could quote anybody and provide an immediately available reference to support his or her point of view.
More often than not, those links are misleading if not outright mendacious, and it takes a healthy dose of knowledge and skepticism to guard against abusing rather than using information technology. Wikipedia is nowadays one of the most cited—perhaps the most cited—references, and yet it is full of falsehoods and tendentious articles, at least when it comes to history and politics.

The year was about 2011 or 2012 when I had an online exchange with an anonymous English-speaking Internet user (most likely an American) regarding the composition of the Syrian Army. He posted an assertion that the majority of the men making up the Syrian Armed Forces belonged to the Alawite sect, and when I replied to the contrary, he promptly provided a link to Wikipedia corroborating his view, thus—in his mind at least—dealing me the proverbial coup de grâce. I was certainly not about to divulge my national origin to yet another know-it-all ignoramus, but I politely pointed out to him that what he was proposing was simply impossible: the Syrian Law prescribed mandatory universal military service for all men of all sects age 18 or older with few exemptions. Naturally, I provided a link to support my counterargument, but he deigned not to reply to my post or even acknowledge receiving it.

So much of this anecdote. Everyone who lives in Syria or has resided there long enough knows that the Syrian Army is made up of all Syrians, not just the Alawites, as many outsiders seem to think. That said, there is no question that the Alawites are overrepresented in the professional armed forces, and this is true for the officer corps, NCOs, and career soldiers in general. Certain key units are commanded by Alawites, and that has been the case for decades, no ifs, ands, or buts. Why is it so? Has there been a deliberate policy by the powers-that-be to construct a sectarian army? And if so, towards what purpose?

To understand the process by which the Alawites came to occupy such a position, one has to go back in time, all the way to the Ottomans, if not prior. For centuries, the Alawites were marginalized, impoverished, and discriminated against. They sought a safe haven in the mountain named after them, the way the Druze, Maronite, and Twelver Shiites have done in Greater Syria from time immemorial. So long as Syria belonged to one empire or another, the Alawites' ambitions were frustrated by the dictates of the imperial center, often located thousands of miles away; in this respect they shared the fate of all Syrians with the exception of those who identified or collaborated with the hegemon.

Syria gained its independence in 1946 and felt as such compelled to have its own national army, rather than depend on the “protection” of Paris or Constantinople. Joining the army was now open to all Syrians—Jews excepted, though I am not sure at what point this discrimination started—who wanted to embark on a military career, and there was, of course, the above-mentioned universal service. But who are usually the ones who choose such a career? This is a question that could be posed in any country, not just Syria.

Serving in the Syrian army is anything but a free ride. Military life is difficult for the vast majority of soldiers even in peaceful times. It is true that some may end up achieving wealth and glory, but this is the exception, not the rule. Many more lose life and limb, and the majority endure a Spartan existence. Conclusion: if you or your parents have the means, chances are you would not opt for a military career; this is true of everyone regardless of color or creed. Joining the army affords some a chance, a way out of a precarious life. The army is a vehicle of social mobility all over the planet. If the Alawites joined the Syrian Armed Forces in disproportionate numbers, it is because they'd been disproportionately poor, not because they harbored some ominous designs to dominate the country. An excellent study about the rise of the Baath Party and its relation to Syria's peasantry and minorities was done by the late Hanna Batatu. Patrick Seale's Asad is also an essential read for those interested in Syrian politics.

But is this phenomenon, that of minorities assuming leadership, a new one? Was it a product of the 20th century? Of decolonization? Let's take a free ride in a time machine to the Middle Ages, and let's start with the 7th century AD. Admittedly, this would be an arbitrary departure point for a country as ancient as Syria.

When the Arabs thundered out of their peninsula under the banner of Islam to evict the Byzantines out of Syria and North Africa and humble the Sassanian Empire beyond redemption—in what could arguably be described as the blitzkrieg of the Dark Ages—the Levant was still largely Christian in creed (with a multitude of denominations at each other's throats, to be sure) and Aramaic and/or Greek in speech. The triumphant Arabs were a minority in language as well as religion, and that was to be the case throughout the reign of the Umayyad. They even discouraged the conversion of the natives, preferring instead to maintain their privileges as an elite caste, taxing the “Dhimmis” to support a parasitic (excuse my language, but I prefer to call a spade a spade) Arab soldiery and its dependents. Tolerant of others faith they were, but this tolerance varied with the temperament of the ruler. Perhaps the most tolerant of them all was the founder, Muawiya, understandably so as the state was still young and vulnerable, whereas the least tolerant was the pious Umar ibn Abdul Aziz.

The Umayyad reign came to an end when—in a bloodbath—their White Banner succumbed to the Abbasid Black Banner. In reality it was a resurgence of the Persian Empire and a reassertion of age-old Iranian dominance in Mesopotamia. Syria was marginalized under the Abbasids as the empire's center of gravity shifted to the east. It is not my intention to narrate a page that does not properly belong to the history of Syria. Suffice it to say that the Abbasid Empire was dominated by Persians or Turks practically since its inception all the way to its collapse and ultimate destruction under the onslaught of the Mongol Hordes.

Syria subsequently fell under Tulunid, Hamdanid, Fatimid, Seljuk Turks, Crusaders.... It was to experience an Indian Summer under the Zengid and the Ayyubid. It is interesting to note that not only were those “minoritarian” rulers (for by then the Arabic-speaking people constituted a decisive majority) of a different ethnicity, but they also hardly spoke Arabic. They bore different, foreign-sounding names, as could easily be verified by paying a visit to some of the countless mosques and mausoleums they left throughout Syria. Saladin was not an Arab, no matter what the pseudo-history taught in Syria's schools tells us. The same goes for Nureddin, al-Adil, all the way to the fall of the Ayyubid in the middle of the 13th century.

From 1250 to 1516, Syria fell under the dominance of the Mameluke, yet another alien race with alien manners and a foreign tongue. Next came the Ottomans, who regularly appointed governors from all over their vast empire to Syria, then one of their fairest provinces.
It should by now be evident that Syria has been governed by one minority or another since at least the Muslim Arab invasion. Those pesky “sectarians,” however, eventually managed to blend in with the rest of the population, adopt its “native” Arabic tongue, and contribute to the country'’s rich heritage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of those inconvenient yet straightforward facts: pretty much every single religious, ethnic, or linguistic group in Syria was—at one point or another—a sect or a minority. The same ignorant and derogatory stereotypes heaped indiscriminately against the Alawites today were in all likelihood used and abused against “Pagans,” Umayyad, Persians, Turks, Fatimid, Kurds, Jews, Samaritans, Christians (Monophysite, Nestorian, Greek Orthodox), Muslims (Sunni, Shiite, Ismaili, Druze), you name it.

Bigotry does not target individuals but rather whole groups. It is not about what you do but who you are. It goes without saying that no one should be immune to criticism, and any leader or politician should be fair game. President Obama is a case in point: serious criticism targets his domestic and foreign policy, while bigots choose to focus on irrelevant issues such as his faith (or the lack thereof), skin color, parents, and birthplace.