The Root of Arabs’ Radicalism

Interview by Hossein Sarrafi 

Recently Wahhabi clergies issued a fatwa (religious decree) that the holy sites of Shiites in Iran and Saudi Arabia should be destroyed. What is the reason in your opinion?

I don’t see that as something out of the routine. Radical movements in Shiite and Sunni sects have always existed and have been each others’ best companion. That is, the Shiite radical side provides the fuel the Sunni side needs as the driving force and act somehow that testifies to their beliefs and vice versa.

There are Shiites who curse the Prophet’s disciples, issue decrees on the murder of Sunnis, and speak against the Sunnis and their beliefs on provocative occasions. There also exists the Sunni version of these people. But these two factions have never belonged to the circle of genuine clerics.

We shouldn’t consider these people as members of the Sunni or Shiite scholars’ community. In my opinion we should assume that radical movements have emerged sometime and become important during different political periods. That is, their presence and recognition is under the direct influence of the political domain.

During our entente with Saudi Arabia, one of the well-known Sunni figures of this country attacked Shiism in his Friday sermon in presence of Mr. Rafsanjani. That invective was quelled by Saudi Arabia itself, before its news could break into Iran and raise Shiites’ protest.

I don’t remember exactly whether I read it in a minute or heard that in a meeting that King Abdullah described how he had personally dealt with the problem. Anyway, I don’t see this as a part of political moves.

What is the history of Salafism?

Salafism was once a progressive movement aimed at returning to the foundations of Islam and to refine it. But later it was followed by fanatic believes such as ban on visiting holy sites and confronting Shiism and its way of thinking. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of this movement.

I believe that after the Islamic Revolution, Saudi Arabia decided to strengthen radical Sunni movement since it believed the Shiite wave was threatening it. The increase in the number of Salafist groups of course caused some troubles for Iran and Shiism, but it ultimately backfired on Saudi Arabia because the main figures entered the political sphere and Bin Laden emerged out of this political sphere.

Why do we see clashes between Sunnis and Shiites, noticeably in Iraq?

We must get to the roots of the issue. What fostered antagonism against Sunnism or against Shiism was United States’ presence in the region. United States’ presence in Middle East was aimed at obliteration of the radical religious movement of Bin Laden which had caused 9/11.

Bin Laden didn’t have public support, but due to their unfamiliarity Americans entered the region in a way that Muslims felt their presence is to eradicate the Islamic intellectual current, not Bin Laden.

That’s why radicalism quickly spread in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen and to some extent in Persian Gulf countries to stop the insult and humiliation pointed towards the Arab and Muslim community. As a result, the governments in need of public support had to recognize radicalism.

These problems arose since the time the ties between Iran and Arab countries faltered and Iran was portrayed as a threat to the region. The main advantage of the reform era was that Iran was not considered a threat by Arab countries. These countries had concerns probably, but Iran was deemed as the elder brother standing by their side and willing to establish bilateral ties. The recent developments pave the way for the activities of radical groups.

Recently one of the Democrat presidential candidates declared that in case of becoming President of U.S.A he will launch a military attack on Mecca and Medina. This remark, though totally indecent, irrelevant and propagandistic, even preposterous for the voters, shows a kind of antagonism against Islam in America which is somehow welcomed by the public.

Radicals are the best accomplices to prattlers like this candidate. And he truly inspires the Islamist radicals. Actually they co-operate. When the radicals decide to provoke Muslims they don’t say that Americans are people who want to live in peaceful coexistence with Muslims, instead they say that Americans wish to destroy your holy cities, Mecca and Medina. Radical Muslims immediately assert that all Christians shall be slaughtered. Iraqis should die because they don’t drive out the intruders. These are the extremes of Islam and West that must be controlled by both sides.

Look, you can’t urge only one side to control these people. Islamophobia causes West phobia and in this race definitely it is not the people and the global civilization who win the race, but violence and terrorism.

Do you think that Salafist groups dispatch and train terrorist in Iraq?

Definitely. I don’t know where these suicide bombers come from. But their mentality is exactly that of Salafism. Anyone who fans violence in Iraq, whether Syrian or Saudi is betraying the future of Islam, Iraq and the region because a secure Iraq can be really helpful to the whole region and Islam. Just look at the massacre of people who wanted to celebrate the championship of their country in Asian Cup. Definitely these actions are underpinned by Salafism.

Mr. Abtahi! You were part of the reformist government and close to Mr. Khatami. What was the policy of Iran on relationships with Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and countries of the Persian Gulf region? How was the détente policy developed between Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Before the revolution, Arab countries of the Persian Gulf region feared Iran for a geographical reason. They feared the vastness of Iran and their own tininess. The total costal border of the 7 countries of Persian Gulf region is less than that of Iran. That makes these countries vulnerable.

Because of their weakness, these countries sign security pacts with Britain, United States or France. Before the revolution, because of the regime’s heavy dependence on the United States, Iran played the role of an elder brother in the region. That caused lots of concerns for the countries of the region.

After the revolution ideological concern was added to the previous ones. That means Iran had turned into a revolutionary country holding the same power as before, and anti-American and Shiite air existed in many of these countries.

These countries worried incitement of the Shiite groups in their countries. Also another important change took place: Iran became anti-American. United States entered the region and the Second Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991 strengthened its position. The Arab countries found a supporter that was against Iran.

Israel and the Persian Gulf countries were the main obstacles to the re-establishment of ties between Iran and United States. Every time both countries attempted to get closer, these countries tried to impede the process. They worried that Iran-U.S. ties may cause their being neglected by their supporter.

This is the historical trend. But the truth is that Arab countries have progressed. The new generations of their rulers are not like the previous ones anymore. They had educated in Europe and United States and had a different attitude towards government.

Hence, Iran had the possibility to establish ties with them and they found Iran’s presence comforting. I remember that during the early months of the reform era, the Islamic Conference Summit was held in Tehran, which the Arab leaders called the most successful summit so far. They had come to understand the new atmosphere. I heard it several times from King Abdullah that it was after that summit that they trusted Iran.

What were the measures taken by the government that brought a sense of security for King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region?

The détente policy is not a one-sided policy; to claim that we want to de-escalate is not enough. The other party must infer that honesty lies under these statements. No one claims that they intend to raise tensions in the region. But during Mr. Khatami’s presidency this claim was accepted by the other side.

The mutual trust became effective to the extent that for the first time we signed a security pact with Saudi Arabia. Signing this agreement was an unprecedented move in the history of Persian Gulf countries. I heard it twice from the late Sheikh Zayed that Mr. Khatami’s presidency brought peace for us.

How do you see the Iran-Saudi Arabia ties in Mr. Ahmadinejhad’s government?

You see, the détente policy was followed after Mr. Khatami. I mean it was officially announced. Even there were moves such as visiting UAE that hadn’t taken place even during the reform era.

Did you approve of Mr. Ahmadinejhad’s visit to the UAE?

Yes, I did. And I wrote an article supporting it. During Mr. Khatami’s presidency I insisted on the visit a lot. The UAE has a dispute with us over three islands but we don’t doubt that Lesser Tunb, Greater Tunb and Abu Musa belong to us. Naturally the claimant country [the UAE in this case] should state that we can’t visit their country as long as we’ve occupied their territory and the dispute has remained unresolved.

When we have no concerns about that part of our territory and our visit means corroboration of our right, it means no disputes exist. I don’t know about the Mr. Ahmadinejhad’s negotiations, but during Mr. Khatami’s tenure, when an invitation was sent by Sheikh Zayed, we told them that there should be no talks on the three islands and they accepted our request.

In my opinion, Mr. Ahmadinejhad’s trip to Emirates is diplomatically a sign of Iran’s power. But I should add that despite the measures taken; currently an air of suspicion surrounds the ties between Iran and Arab countries.

Even if no remarks have been made against Arabs and even if the Arab countries’ policy is avoiding clashes with Iran, still you can obviously infer misunderstanding and worry from their words and that seriously harms Iran’s regional policies.

Nowadays Americans are replacing Iran with Israel for the Arab countries. That is, Israel’s permanent threat for Arabs is replaced by Iran’s threat.

Mr. Abtahi, you said that you believe in mutual confidence-building. Do the Arab countries make any move so that Iran puts a step forward?

Look, in diplomacy and foreign policy retaliation and entering struggles do not mean success. These are the easiest things to do and not the most difficult and they actually damage the reputation of countries.

I believe it is the outcome that counts in diplomacy. I can talk with arrogance and the other side can say that what we did was nonsense and tensions would rise. But that’s not what we want as glory. During the negotiations’ process a move is considered important and valuable only when it brings about a diplomatic, economical, political, etc. achievement.