Comments on: Smith on the Shia http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:51:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Anonymous http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-35543 Anonymous Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:19:34 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-35543 SarahBell ( ) wrote: SarahBell ( ) wrote:

]]> By: David Faris http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8261 David Faris Fri, 06 May 2005 04:31:57 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8261 When will Lee Smith ever finish his crummy book on "Arab culture?" The bigger question is why anyone keeps publishing him. Isn't the Tmes embarrassed that Smith gets the date completely wrong in the <em>fourth paragraph of his big story about the battle between Evil Sunnis and Good Shiites? I'd laugh, but unfortunately this article is a fair representation of mainstream discourse about the Middle East.</em> When will Lee Smith ever finish his crummy book on “Arab culture?” The bigger question is why anyone keeps publishing him. Isn’t the Tmes embarrassed that Smith gets the date completely wrong in the fourth paragraph of his big story about the battle between Evil Sunnis and Good Shiites? I’d laugh, but unfortunately this article is a fair representation of mainstream discourse about the Middle East.

]]> By: Josh Stacher http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8237 Josh Stacher Wed, 04 May 2005 08:01:45 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8237 Brian Ulrich, of Brian's Study Breaks blog, has a quick refute to Smith's NYT piece. According to Brian - this date 656 AD is wrong. Hussayn was assassinated in Karbala in 680AD. He also rightly notes that the Fatimids ruled Egypt and other Shi'ia regimes around the region over the past 1400 years. It is one thing to make arguments most experts disagree with. It is another thing to screw up historical facts while doing it. Brian Ulrich, of Brian’s Study Breaks blog, has a quick refute to Smith’s NYT piece. According to Brian - this date 656 AD is wrong. Hussayn was assassinated in Karbala in 680AD. He also rightly notes that the Fatimids ruled Egypt and other Shi’ia regimes around the region over the past 1400 years.

It is one thing to make arguments most experts disagree with. It is another thing to screw up historical facts while doing it.

]]> By: Robbert http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8219 Robbert Tue, 03 May 2005 06:30:27 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8219 I don't think this article should merely be thought of as 'hilarious', 'stupid', or 'rubbish'. Sure, the article as a whole is poor, but its core message is not. The developments in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain and the shiite areas of Saudi Arabia do all have a sectarian component. The fact that US policy is (perceived to be)behind a number of these developments is conducive to allegations that 'shiites are american agents/zionists''. Silly as it may be, this is all material that can be abused by anti-shiite forces (i.e. virtually all salafi groups). You can be annoyed with Abdullah having spoken of his fear of a 'shiite crescent', but perhaps one is better advised to be alarmed by it. The question is, to what extent should one be alarmed, how serious is the possibility of an escalation of the big fitna? I don’t think this article should merely be thought of as ‘hilarious’, ’stupid’, or ‘rubbish’. Sure, the article as a whole is poor, but its core message is not. The developments in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain and the shiite areas of Saudi Arabia do all have a sectarian component. The fact that US policy is (perceived to be)behind a number of these developments is conducive to allegations that ’shiites are american agents/zionists”. Silly as it may be, this is all material that can be abused by anti-shiite forces (i.e. virtually all salafi groups).

You can be annoyed with Abdullah having spoken of his fear of a ’shiite crescent’, but perhaps one is better advised to be alarmed by it. The question is, to what extent should one be alarmed, how serious is the possibility of an escalation of the big fitna?

]]> By: Chanad http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8213 Chanad Mon, 02 May 2005 22:30:06 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8213 I blame King Abdullah for all this stupidity. Even if all of the American journalists were thinking about it, few were openly claiming that the Sunnis were shivering in their boots at the thought of Shiite power. But ever since Abdullah's moronic "shiite crescent" remarks, everyone is freely talking about some transnational Shiite entity that will take its revenge on the Sunnis for Karbala. Hilarious... but its sad that people will read this NYT rubbish and believe it. I blame King Abdullah for all this stupidity. Even if all of the American journalists were thinking about it, few were openly claiming that the Sunnis were shivering in their boots at the thought of Shiite power.

But ever since Abdullah’s moronic “shiite crescent” remarks, everyone is freely talking about some transnational Shiite entity that will take its revenge on the Sunnis for Karbala.

Hilarious… but its sad that people will read this NYT rubbish and believe it.

]]> By: Alif http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8212 Alif Mon, 02 May 2005 22:07:41 +0000 http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/02/smith-on-the-shia/#comment-8212 SHUT UP N.Y.T. SHUT UP N.Y.T.

]]>