The Salafi Distraction from Lebanon’s Woes
Lebanon has been referred to as a Mafia State, Banana Republic, and many other unflattering terms inferring that no central government power has the ability to control this country. These conjectures have recently been confirmed by the wild rampage of rhetoric, “protests,” and specifically, the daily burning of tires.
Ahmad al-Assir added fuel to the fire last Friday and has not quit since. The radical Salafi leader decided to distract the Lebanese away from the real issues they face basis over a toy that was not even produced in Lebanon, and which allegedly has been on shelves all around the Middle East. A toy gun has become the focus of his rampage and gave him an opportunity to gain his 15 minutes of fame on the Lebanese stage.
The gun apparently makes a noise when the trigger is pulled. While many confirm that it says a phrase in English, some are convinced it shouts anti-Sunni slurs in the background. According to many reports, there have been similar controversies over the same toy in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Nonetheless, Assir decided to use this toy to create another political and sectarian issue in Lebanon. Forget the fact that the Lebanese are living in the year 2012 without regular electricity, water, and stability. But, for Assir, the issue in Lebanon is a toy, that, he presumes, voices anti-Sunni slander in the background.
Not only is he so sure about what this toy says, but he immediately concludes that the Shia leadership in Lebanon are directly responsible. So how does Assir address this alleged slander? With more slander. Assir threatened Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, the primary Shia leaders in Lebanon.
Assir not only threatened the Shia leadership in Lebanon, but he threatened one of the highest-ranking Lebanese officials in Parliament Speaker Berri. In most countries, such a direct threat on an official would result in an arrest and questioning by the nation’s security forces.
However, after the arrest and subsequent release of an Islamist leader in Tripoli, the Lebanese government now lacks the ability of making any such arrest. This is because if they were to arrest Assir, Saida would quickly become the new Tripoli.
The Lebanese government’s weakness was exposed in Tripoli when, in response to demonstrations and violence, they unilaterally released the wanted Islamist.
Assir created strife in Lebanon while claiming to preach against it. This hypocrisy continued when he called for “peaceful” demonstrations in Saida. His aim, he claims, is to address the issue of non-state (the Resistance) weapons. Claiming that these weapons – which are legitimized by the Taif Accords – are the source of instability in Lebanon opened a new can of worms and threatened the same instability we witnessed in the North Lebanon a month ago. In an attempt to avoid such fate in Saida, other Sunni clerics have strongly urged Assir to halt his demonstrations for the sake of Lebanon.
Nonetheless, Assir continues his provocative protests. Specifically, he announced that if his protests were met with violence, he would respond in the same way.
Such threats have been the logic used by many seeking to oppose the Resistance. They claim the Resistance’s weapons are destabilizing Lebanon, yet those who oppose the Resistance appear to hold “non-state” weapons themselves when they threaten to meet “violence with violence.”
Such threats are amusing in that these critics of the Resistance propose to defend themselves against a fabricated threat. The weapons they protest against are being used for national security, and to defend Lebanon from the threat that still exists on the southern border. This was the exact purpose for the Resistance’s weapons as stipulated in the Taif Agreement, and continues to be so.
Assir and those like him will always look for any opening to enter the Lebanese political arena. They crave the attention of having followers who chant their names and raise their pictures. Assir found his opening with a silly toy. He fabricated a polarizing controversy in Lebanon that is unfounded and irrelevant to the daily challenges faced by the Lebanese people.
For his own selfish reasons, Assir has pushed Lebanon further toward the brink of civil strife. And once again, the government is forced to spend hours, days, and weeks addressing a non-issue.
Ali Ajrouch is a law student at Wayne State University Law School.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar's editorial policy.
Reddit
Comments
What is most maddening, is that rabble-rousers like the cleric can usurp the leadership as proponents of a just cause.
For example, Assir's contention that Hezbollah enter talks with all parties in government to turn their weapons into the national army, or else every coalition government in Lebanon will be subject to threat and intimidation by the most heavily armed force in the country. Hezbollah.
Yet, if fialogue about such a serious matter us left unattended, the lingering resentment festers and is then exploited by opportunists and self promoters.
All Lebanese would benefit from a rational and transformational dislogue with all parties in government, for if Lebanon is to survive this wave of sectarian violence sweeping the Levant, it will be because it values peaceful coexistence and prosperity over communal strife and anarchy. The only hope for that is by strengthening the role of central government, a government which must begin to serve all Lebanese equally.
"Assir and those like him will always look for any opening to enter the Lebanese political arena. They crave the attention of having followers who chant their names and raise their pictures."
Ali:
-While I agree that Assir is bad for Lebanese politics (not the most ambitious analysis on your part), you come off as an apologist for Nabih Berri and others who crave the exact same thing and also have followers who "chant their names and raise their pictures." Your bias is very evident in your writing, and it seems you're caught up in the game of Lebanese politics rather than envisioning real, progressive change that addresses the core of Lebanon's problems, which extends far beyond silly media confrontations. To be sure, Assir deserves our criticism and condemnation, but to suggest that this man is responsible for "pushing Lebanon towards civil strife" is giving him way too much credit, and represents a severe lapse in understanding of the terrain on which you're commenting. The problem of "civil strife" is far deeper and more complex, as I'm sure you know, than a marginal Sheikh talking about toys. It's a systemic problem, and it just so happens that the very people you seek to defend are in fact benefiting from and perpetuating that system.
Instead of playing the sectarian game (which EVERY political entity in Lebanon is a part of), we should be looking for ways to eradicate it. It's been going on for decades; can you say there has been a winner? There has been a loser, though--the Lebanese people and everyone else who hopes for a secure, prosperous Lebanon.
Bilal:
Thank you for your response/critique.
It appears that because my name is Ali and I went after Assir that I am presumably Sectarian and an apologist for the Shiite leaders in Lebanon (which I believe the other two commenters presumed as well). You and Abu-Umar are focusing on a small point in my article and missing the broader message that I am trying to propel.
The point is that it's sad that anybody in the Lebanese arena can suddenly make a name for himself by spewing threats over a silly toy. Furthermore, his demonstrations have, in fact, INCREASED the tension in Lebanon.
Now, my real criticism is directed towards the Lebanese government, which as you may know, is composed of, well, the sect/faction you claim I am an apologist for. You'll notice that I said that government lacks the capability to calm a situation like this. Particularly, they lack the legitimacy to address a man who directly threatened a high ranking Lebanese government official, despite what that government official's sect may be. They allow a man like this to continue distracting them from the real issues that their constituents face on a daily basis including electricity problems, water problems, instability, etc.
Take another read of the article and perhaps you'll get a better understanding of the message I am attempting to transcend. Note the title: A Distraction from Lebanon's Woes.
But, I appreciate the presumption of who I support and what I stand for.
Cheers.
Ali:
You're right. I absolutely did make assumptions. But if you think your name is what tipped me off then you're out of touch with your own article (maybe Abu Omar has more of a problem with your name). The fact is that your writing makes it clear where your biases (or loyalties) are, not your name. Perhaps you meant it that way; after all, this is an opinion piece, not a hard news story. For example, you write:
"Such threats have been the logic used by many seeking to oppose the Resistance. They claim the Resistance’s weapons are destabilizing Lebanon, yet those who oppose the Resistance appear to hold “non-state” weapons themselves when they threaten to meet “violence with violence.
Such threats are amusing in that these critics of the Resistance propose to defend themselves against a fabricated threat. The weapons they protest against are being used for national security, and to defend Lebanon from the threat that still exists on the southern border. This was the exact purpose for the Resistance’s weapons as stipulated in the Taef Agreement, and continues to be so."
Now, is it illogical here to assume that the author is sympathetic to Hizbullah (not saying that's a bad thing) regardless of what his/her name is? Why did you include the "have been used by many seeking to oppose The Resistance" part, if you simply wanted to show how "it's sad that anyone in the Lebanese arena can suddenly make a name for himself . . ."? Whether you want to admit or not, at that point your article shifted to being about defending Hizbullah (specifically their right to retain their weapons). Based on that, I was offering my opinion that these discussions are part of the game of Lebanese politics, and we should move away from taking sides (pro-Hizbullah, anti-Hizbullah) and start thinking about the broader system that has poisoned Lebanon for decades. You may or may not think that opinion is relevant to your article (I happen to think so), but that's what was on my mind. You may think it's "minor" point in your article, but it's a major point to me as a reader.
In any case: a good, interesting read.
Interesting that there isn't a single mention of May 2008 (aka: youm majid) in this discussion of non-state weapons...
Kama tudeen tudaan and everything you accused Aseer of, your people and leaders are just as guilty, including all sorts of threats and intimidation Who said that this "toy" was the only issue brought forward by Aseer? Why don't you talk about the logistical, mukhabarati, media support of both Amal and Hezbollah in support of Bashar and his mafia, the main issue which Aseer has been talking about and the takhween carnival and attacks that Amal, Hezbollah and others in Lebanon have been engaging against all those who oppose Bashar and there is no doubt that Hezbollah's weapons are used as an intimidation in this regard. Is Aseer an "America-Zionist" stooge even though he condemn pro-Western policies of Sa'd al-Hariri, would Hasan Nasrallah and Nabih Berri dare condemn their allies who rode to power on American tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would they dare condemn the Iranian regime for allowing American warplanes to enter its airspace to attack Afghanistan? Would they dare condemn Chalabi for cavorting with the Zionist Neocons and inciting them to attack Iraq? No they never will, proving their sectarian hypocrisy and insincerity and Chalabi and Ibrahim al-Ja'fari were lavishly welcomed in Beirut by Hezbollah. Secondly, while Hezbollah openly calls for "Islamic unity", it pursues a different policy, distributing du'a "Sanamy Quraysh"(Abu Bakr and Umar) in Ad-Dahiyeh, the comparison of A'isha and Talha to the "American-Zionist" camp by Shaykh Yazbek, forgetting his buddies Chalabi and Ja'fari, Hezbollah cleric, Afeef an-Nabulsi writing a flowery foreword to a book in which it is mentioned that Umar ibn al-Khattab is responsible for the establishment of Israel!, so dont pretend that there is no sectarianism from the other side.
Post new comment