What
exactly Is So "Radical"
About Moqtada Sadr?
By Sharif Hikmat
Nashashibi
21 August , 2004
Arab
Media
As
US forces run amok once again in Iraq, faithfully aided by the puppet
regime of Iyad Allawi, the spotlight has again fallen on rebel Shia
cleric Moqtada Sadr. While the media cannot resist calling him "radical",
it is in fact very difficult to find any basis for this description.
A consistent centerpiece
of his policies has been his staunch opposition to the occupation of
his country. "There can be no politics under occupation, no freedom
under occupation, no democracy under occupation," he said this
month. What is so radical about that? If his Mehdi Army were patrolling
and bombing London, New York or Washington, I would be astonished to
find media descriptions of US and British resistance as "radical".
His opposition to
foreign occupation cannot be explained away as support for Saddam Hussein,
who persecuted the Shias so ruthlessly. Sadr and his family were vehemently
opposed to the dictator and his regime, and for this they paid a heavy
price Sadr's uncle was executed in 1980, and his father and two
brothers were shot dead in February 1999, forcing him to go underground.
Although Sadr's
opposition to occupation has been consistent, he only turned to armed
resistance over a year after the invasion of his country. During that
time, his sermons called for non-violent resistance and he stopped short
of invoking a jihad against occupation forces.
While death and
insecurity have reigned in Iraq, when Baghdad fell Sadr supporters took
control of many aspects of life in the Shia sector of the city and in
the south of the country, appointing clerics to mosques, guarding hospitals,
collecting garbage, operating orphanages, and supplying food and essential
supplies to Iraqis hit by the hardships of war. I cannot imagine anything
less "radical" than garbage collection, hospital security,
the welfare of orphans or feeding the hungry, especially since the occupation
authorities resolutely failed in their responsibility under international
law to provide such basic and vital services.
Indeed, the media
overlooks the fact - as it does with many organizations that happen
to have a military wing, such as the Palestinian Hamas or Lebanese Hezbollah
- that Sadr runs a network of schools and charities built by his father.
What is he possibly thinking, providing impoverished Iraqis with education
and social welfare as their country descends ever-faster and deeper
into turmoil?!
Sadr was not provoked
when a cleric associated with him was arrested in September 2003. When
Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed
the Iraqi Governing Council, Sadr did not turn to violence, but instead
on October 10, 2003, announced the formation of an alternative government
to replace those handpicked by foreign occupiers.
When coalition forces
closed his Al Hawza newspaper in March this year, Sadr's supporters
staged peaceful protests against this blatant infringement of the media
freedom the invaders claimed to be trying to foster. Peaceful protests
also followed the arrest on April 3 this year of his senior aide Mustafa
al-Yaqubi, and threats to arrest Sadr himself.
The response from
the occupation forces was armed and fatal for numerous Iraqi civilians,
after which the protests turned violent and Sadr proclaimed on April
4 that his peaceful means "have become a losing card" and
that "we should seek other ways
terrorise your enemy, as we
cannot remain silent over its violations." Bremer, whose administration
undertook an illegal war against Iraq, called him an "outlaw".
Mike Whitney, writing
for Counter Punch, put it well in an article on May 11, 2004: "His
call to arms only occurred after he had exhausted the conventional democratic
methods of expression. This being the case, the appellation of 'radical
cleric' is just another of the unproved assumptions brandished
by western journalists to promote the overall goals of the occupation.
It is another illustration of the manipulation of language to mold public
perceptions. It is tantamount to ideological warfare."
Even through armed
resistance to occupation, Sadr has stuck to well-defined limits. He
has denied involvement in car bombings and assassinations; he denounced
the August 2003 attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad; he had urged
his followers not to attack Iraqi security forces, until their current
involvement in US onslaughts; he is opposed to the taking of journalists
as hostages, though when he arranged the release on August 13 of Daily
Telegraph reporter James Brandon, the newspaper cynically called it
a "propaganda opportunity" and has continued to describe him
as "radical"; and in a sermon in July this year he condemned
the beheading of foreign workers:
"There is no
religion or religious law that punishes by beheading. True, they are
your enemies and occupiers, but this does not justify cutting off their
heads."
Sadr's eventual
use of armed resistance has certainly not been viewed as "radical"
by his compatriots. In a June 2004 poll conducted by the CPA, 81% of
Iraqis said their opinion of the cleric was "much better"
or "better" after his first uprising than before. The reason
for this, if any were needed, is that in the same poll, a whopping 92%
of Iraqis considered the US-led forces as "occupiers" and
only 2% viewed them as "liberators", while 55% wanted them
out of the country immediately.
Sadr has condemned
Allawi as an extension of the occupation, and has dismissed the June
2004 "handover of power" as a farce. He is simply stating
fact the interim prime minister was appointed by the US, has
wholeheartedly supported US acts of aggression in his own country, has
had links with British and American intelligence services, and supports
the continued presence of foreign troops in the newly "sovereign"
Iraq. Allawi's heavy-handed, compliant rule has not gone down well with
the population the Financial Times reported a recent poll showing
his approval rating at just 2%, tied with Saddam Hussein!
Sadr condemns those
who cooperate with the occupiers, and has expressed solidarity with
the Palestinians: "The fate of Iraq and Palestine are the same."
While the US regularly threatens Syria and Iran, further destabilizing
the Middle East, Sadr has vowed not to allow any attack on his country's
neighbours from Iraqi territory. He has called for unity between Sunnis
and Shias, and Iraq's territorial integrity. These policies surely meet
with overwhelming approval from the Arab and Muslim worlds, war-weary
Iraqis and others globally.
But the adjective
"radical" still sticks, though this defies the widespread
popularity Sadr has gained nationally and regionally. He has the allegiance
of the followers of his late father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadi Sadr,
who was one of the most powerful clerics in Iraq. He is able to mobilize
the masses throughout southern Iraq and the Shia sector of Baghdad,
home to 2 million which was renamed Sadr City after Saddam's fall. His
armed resistance has drawn support from Sunnis and Shias throughout
Iraq, the Middle East and beyond, as well as condemnation of US heavy-handedness,
even from within Iraq's interim government.
Despite this, Sadr
has sought diplomacy. He agreed to a truce in June this year which ended
his first uprising, and during the current fighting he has invited mediation
from the Vatican, and expressed his willingness to accept a UN force
in Iraq. Contrast this with Allawi's uncompromising stance that there
can be "no negotiation" with militias.
Sadr is also prepared
to disband his army and form a political party to contest next January's
elections. Fuad Maasum, chairman of the committee organizing Iraq's
current national conference to which Sadr was invited, said this is
"a positive step and his movement has roots in the country."
How far Iraqi leaders
have been willing to accommodate Sadr is evident in the fact that they
are ignoring a decree passed in Baghdad which prevents individuals from
entering the political process unless they have been out of their militia
for three years. Sadr, who does not fit this profile, is being invited
anyway.
Calling him "radical"
is not only a misrepresentation of his policies, it is an insult to
all those who oppose foreign occupation and domination, religious in-fighting
and regional instability. One does not have to be Shia, Iraqi, Arab
or "radical" to see that.
Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi
is the chairman of Arab Media
Watch. He can be contacted at [email protected]