Hosni Mubarak, the self-blessed Egyptian dictator, revealed to al-Arabiya on Saturday that the majority of Shias in the Arab states were always more loyal to Iran than their "own states."
واكد الرئيس المصري ان ولاء اغلب الشيعة في المنطقة هو "لايران وليس لدولهم". وقال ردا على سؤال عن التاثير الايراني في العراق "بالقطع ايران لها ضلع في الشيعة.. الشيعة 65 بالمئة من العراقيين وهناك شيعة في كل هذه الدول وبنسب كبيرة والشيعة دائما ولاؤهم لايران. اغلبهم ولاؤهم لايران وليس لدولهم".
Leave it to an anti-aging oppressor like Mubarak to utter foolish and age-old xenophobic statements that accomplish nothing but lend legitimacy to the works of the man who blew up his favorite summer resort. No wonder the Iraqi government on Sunday was furious over these remarks.
The Iraqi government criticised Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Sunday for saying civil war had started in Iraq, referring to his comments as "a stab in nationality and culture" of the country.
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the government had instructed the Iraqi foreign minister to seek clarification from Egypt on the remarks.
Mubarak said in comments broadcast on Saturday, that the large Shi'ite Muslim presence in Arab states were more loyal to Iran than their own countries, echoing accusations made by his fellow Sunnis in Iraq about their country's Shi'ite leaders.
In one statement, Mubarak, the supposedly benevolent and friendly dictator, managed to distort Shia history and assign Shia Islam to Iran. Shia Islam, of course, is no more the property of Iran than Sunni Islam the property of al-Qaeda. Iran's later destructive role notwithstanding, the problem, if any, has always been the result of dictatorial policies that favored Sunnis over Shias.
واشار مبارك الى ان الرئيس العراقي السابق صدام حسين كان قادرا على الامساك بزمام الامور "لو كان عادلا". وقال ان "المشكلة معقدة من الاصل لان تكوين العراق من عدة مجاميع مختلفة لن يترك الوضع يستريح ابدا. لذلك لو كان صدام عادلا في تصرفاته لم يكن حصل ما حصل".
Mubarak points out above that former president Saddam Hussein would have been able to take charge of Iraq had he been a just ruler. "The problem is complicated from the start because Iraq's [multi-ethnic] makeup will never let the situation rest. Had Saddam been just in his behavior, what happened could have been prevented."
It's hard to explain how the minds of dictators work, but it's easy to take apart what they say, especially when they hypocritically speak of justice lost, view pluralism as a threat, and regard the sect of some as motivation for treason. It's hard to fathom how someone whose country suffered at the hands of Sunni terrorists could say something that justifies and legitimizes those terrorists' bloody anti-Shia attacks in Iraq.
One needs only look at what the inferred Sunni "loyalty" to Arab regimes has achieved to see Mubarak's dangerously misplaced logic. Loyal Sunnis like Zawahiri the Egyptian and Zarqawi the Jordanian were not exactly model citizens inspired by the justice of their rulers, and spreading tolerance and understanding everywhere they killed unworthy subjects. And let us not forget what the loyalties of the delusional victims of Arab nationalism, as they put the interests of the "Arab nation" ahead of their own countries, has done to Arabs, who languish today in ignorance, despotism and fundamentalism.
In any case, how dare a tyrant like Mubarak judge the loyalty of citizens of other Arab states, when his own loyalty to Egypt is at best a simple allegiance to himself?
Does Mubarak want us to believe that the Shias who died for the "Arab cause" and the "Arab nation", which he sold cheap, have died out of love for Iran? That Saddam's victims were partly victims of their loyalty to Iran? Are we to conclude that the Saudis were justified in depriving Saudi Shias from the oil wealth and oppressing them all those years? For who knows, they could have wired their wealth to Iran! And Lebanon's Shias, are they born loyal to Iran, with Hizbullah stamped on their foreheads? Even when they supported the mythical Arab nation, suffered the terror of the Sunni-Arab funded PLO's hit and run war on Israel, were they acting out of love for Iran? And when Israel invaded Lebanon, did they die for the Iranian cause? Did the Shias of Lebanon reject the help of the Saudi, Egyptian and Iraqi armies', preferring Iran's help instead?
Did the region go to crap because of the Shias' betrayal? Is that what brought war and terror to the Arab world?
Leave it to a "Sunni Arab" dictator to "Israelify" Iran and turn the Shia Arabs into the new Jews/Zionists of the Arab world. The next logical step would be to eradicate all the Shias and put them on an "Alliya" to Iran. All Shias, after all, are Iranians or agents of Persia, believes the dictator. And all Sunnis came from Arabia and are peace-loving local and pan-Arab patriots. Isn't that, after all, what the Sunni dictators and their subjects believe?
Here's a bit of "wisdom" that black-haired Hosni can understand, as uttered by one of his early role models, passed down to us through the Islamic chain of fabrication and ignorance:
The Apostle of Allah said: Do not pluck out grey hair. If any believer grows a grey hair in Islam, he will have light on the Day of Resurrection...
And while we're on the subject, here's another:
The Prophet of Allah disliked ten things: Yellow colouring, meaning khaluq, dyeing grey hair, trailing the lower garment, wearing a gold signet-ring, a woman decking herself before people who are not within the prohibited degrees, throwing dice, using spells except with the Mu'awwidhatan, wearing amulets, withdrawing the penis before the semen is discharged, in the case of a woman who is wife or not a wife, and having intercourse with a woman who is suckling a child; but he did not declare them to be prohibited.
I bet you the prophet also disliked fools like Mubarak. Or did he...