Resistance Against Oppression!
Abir Chaaban *
Resistance against oppression seemed to me as a very
attractive theme when it is brought into the debate on the topic “Know Radical
Islam”.** Why? Because it is the grounds upon which radical Islam recruits for
terror and destruction. The radicals are simply taking advantage of the chronic
repressive regimes that have been in control of the affairs of the Arabic
speaking Middle Eastern states by recruiting for the revolutionary ideology of
pan-Islam instead of the revolutionary ideology of pan-Arabism. What has changed
is simply nothing; it is the “resistance” by one form of oppression that will be
replaced with another. Radical Islam however utilizes the same discourse for
recruitment as the one that is utilized by the Arab dictators, and that is the
discourse for the destruction of Zionism instead of resisting the real
oppression and that is the oppression of our own governments, who are corrupt
and brutal.
Resistance against oppression was a concept that was
brought into political activism in Lebanon by Imam Musa al-Sader, who then
promoted equal opportunity and equal participation for the Lebanese Shiites, who
and regardless to their being the largest religious minority in Lebanon were
historically marginalized and alienated by the Lebanese government, that allowed
Palestinian terrorists to operate in South Lebanon. Musa Al-Sader promoted
equality for the Shiites in a pluralist Lebanon, a goal he believed was bound
with the integrity of the state of Lebanon. Sader demanded protection of the
Lebanese South from Israeli attacks, a task that the Lebanese government had
abdicated responsibility. Sader warned about the consequences of the PLO
creating a state within a state in Lebanon. He blamed the cross border shillings
of Israel on the operations of the PLO from the South of Lebanon.
Hezbollah was established by Iran as a resistance
movement against Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. However, Hezbollah and
Iran knew that they could not recruit Shiites by the mere call for the
destruction of Israel, for the majority of the Shiites of South Lebanon could
not see Israel as their main enemy in comparison to the Palestinian guerilla
operations in the South. For the Lebanese southerners, Palestinians were the
main enemy who turned their lives into a daily battle of attacks and counter
attacks that they themselves were indifferent to, but had to bear its
destructive outcome. This situation was mainly established by the Lebanese
government, the same government that the Shiites needed its protection, and
hoped that it will one day provide them with the social services that will
improve their standards of living. In such situation, the support that was
initially needed to better the life of the Shiites was also used to counter the
Lebanese government’s oppressive policies and not to counter Israeli Zionist
oppression. Iran knew the rule of recruitment, and accordingly it created an
extension to their repressive ideology, that is founded on resisting the Israeli
occupation and the rejection of any peace attempts between Lebanon and Israel,
which was culminated with the failure of the May 17, 1983 peace agreement.
Hezbollah continues until today to resist peace instead of oppression.
Hezbollah’s boundaries of operations for its claimed
resistance extends the existing boundaries of the Lebanese State to include
those of the State of Israel, as it morally and financially supports the Islamic
resistence HAMAS. This direct extension of Hezbollah’s geographical boundaries
of operation is a result of guidelines and policies that are directed against
Israel as dictated by Iran, where Israel is the first on the list of enemies of
the ayatollahs of Wilayat Al-Fiqh. A Wilaya that promotes the absolutism of the
jurists of Islam under the interpretations of one religious marje’e (reference)
of Khomaini who is sarcasticly called the absolute Ayatoulla.
One of the main characterstics of the Islamic
revolution in Iran is the idea of the revolution of the oppressed on Earth. The
objective of supporting all revolutionary rebellions from oppression is a
guiding principle for the raison d’état of Iran. The Constitution of Iran makes
this objective as the guiding principle of the Iranian State. Article 2. 5. of
the Constitution of Iran constitutes an absolute form of government that they
call a democracy, of one faith, one beliefe, that is founded on Khomeini’s
interpretations of Shii Islam and Khomeini’s claim of supremacy of his
interpretation over all other faiths and religions including those that fall
under the umbrella of Shiite Islam. The constitution which only allows for the
jurists absolute state that is founded on an endless revolution targeted at the
victory of one understanding of faith over all other existing faiths in the
world, states the objective of “Continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual
guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the
revolution of Islam”; article three goes on to describe the procedure for the
implementation of these objectives 3.15. “the expansion and strengthening of
Islamic brotherhood and public cooperation among all the people”; 3.16.”framing
the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal
commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the mustad'afiin of the
world.” Lebanon served as a fertile ground for the expansion of the Iranian
expansionist agenda of a centralized divinely ordered Islamic state, with its
capital as Tehran. Iran’s former Ambassador to Lebanon Hojjatoleslam Fakher
Rouhana stated that Lebanon has historically been “a platform from which
different ideas have been directed to the Arab World, thus an Islamic movement
in the country will result in Islamic movements throughout the Arab world.”
Little did the divine Iranian ambassador know about the power of ideas, and that
ideas only flow in an environment that promotes the freedom of their flow in a
democratic system of government. Iran wanted to hijack Lebanon and the Lebanese
people’s ability to critically spread their ideas across the Arab World. Iran
therefore capitalized on the withdrawal of Israel from Southern Lebanon. The
Islamic Resistance success in South Lebanon was seen as an extension of the
Islamic Revolution in Iran and as the second Islamic victory after the Iranian
Revolution. This on its own meant the surrender of the Lebanese Southerners to
the sovereignty of State of Iran. Iran therefore has started its criminal
attempt to kill the people of the land that served as the country that provided
the river of ideas to the Arab World into a state that is ruled by one idea and
that is the idea of the revolution, and violence. This idea overshadowed if not
assassinated the grounds under which the Lebanese population have historically
functioned. The free Lebanese people suddenly promoted turning a blind eye to
the grave human rights violations that the divinely inspired Imams are
committing day after day; the Southern Shiites were mesmerized by the idea that
a divinely inspired Imam could not sin even if he, the Imam, orders the murder
of an innocent child.
There is no doubt, however, that Hezbollah has been
the main progressive and reformist political party in Lebanon, attracting
Muslims and Christians alike, with its aggressive initiative for pushing for the
municipal elections, and constructing a social welfare government that provides
for health care, education and other services to the Lebanese less privileged
population. There is no escape from thanking Iran for the funding that it
provides Hezbollah so that it could maintain this social infrastructure that the
Lebanese government itself fails to compete with. However will Iran still
support the Lebanese Shiites mustad’afin (oppressed) if they decide to have
peace with Israel, or does the Lebanese Shiites have to pay the price of
continuous war with Israel for the social well being and better standards of
living that Iran funds? Will the radicals still support progress if peace is the
option that the moderates choose to take? I believe that there is a necessity to
examine these questions within the context of resistance against oppression, and
resisting the oppression that is mainly driven by dictating one idea of
supremacy that is aimed at repressing all the “other” ideas.
* MA Candidate, Interdisciplinary Studies, York
University
** The article was read at a conference on Know Radical Islam, held at
University of Toronto between 6-10 February, 2006
1. Anoushiravan Ehtishami and Raymond A. Hinnebusch, 1977 Syria and Iran, Middle
Powers in a penetrated regional system. Routledge, London and New York: 118
2. id.123
|
