The plight of Egypt’s forgotten Shia minority
Even after the historic election, this marginalised minority risk daily persecution and victimisation because of their beliefs.
By Emanuelle Degli Esposti Published 03 July 2012 11:32
Sitting cross-legged on the threadbare sofa in his living room, Abu Hasan gestures to the bare walls behind him, apologising for the sparseness of his home. He breathlessly explains that himself, his wife, and their three children had to flee their previous apartment here in Alexandria only a few days ago after a neighbour posted a note under their door threatening to kills them.
“This is third time we have had to move in four years,” he says, offering me a plate of steaming bamiye (okra).
Abu Hasan and his family are Shia – a small and marginalised minority in predominantly Sunni Egypt. He says that they face daily persecution and victimisation because of their beliefs.
Since Mohammed Morsi was declared President of Egypt, there has been growing speculation about what the future of Egypt's Coptic minority will be under an Islamist government, but little has been said about the even smaller (and arguably equally threatened) Shia community. In the run up to the elections, I spent time in both Cairo and Alexandria speaking to the Egyptian Shia community and gauging their response to the likelihood of a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The schism between Sunni and Shia Islam dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammed in AD 632, but the historical nature of the split does little to lessen the reality of Shias living and worshiping in Egypt. Although there are no official statistics about the number of Shia in Egypt, it has been estimated that they constitute roughly one per cent of the population: around one million people. Because of their relative obscurity, and the fact they tend to shy away from public or political activism, they are often overlooked in discussions about Egypt’s religious minorities.
“There are no Shia in Egypt, we are a Sunni country,” said one woman I spoke to outside Cairo’s Al Hussein mosque.
Shias say that they are ostracised and persecuted by Sunnis, and that they are afraid to publicly admit their confessional status since they believe it will only invite more prejudice. The Mubarak regime was especially intolerant towards Shias, and they were regularly arrested and interrogated during his 30-year reign. In 2009, more than 300 Shias were imprisoned by state security without official justification.
“Before the revolution, the situation of Shia was critical in Egypt, but since the revolution we have had a light margin of freedom,” Sayed Gamal Hashemi, a friend of Abu Hasan, tells me over a cup of heavily-sweetened tea.
But when asked whether Shias or Christians have more rights in post-revolutionary Egypt, Hashemi is quick to answer: “Christians,” he says, “of course.”
Misinterpretation and confusion abound among both Sunni and Shia communities, making reconciliation or acceptance between them an increasingly challenging task. One young Sunni student, who asked not to be named, claimed that Shia were “kufar” (infidels) because they didn’t follow the prophet Muhammed; while a Shia man (who also asked to remain anonymous) believed that it is “halal” (religiously ordained) for Sunni to kill Shia. Neither claims are true, but they reflect the extent of mistrust between the two communities.
Despite this, the number of Shia in Egypt seems to be growing, and there have been several cases of Sunnis converting to Shiism. Mahmoud Jabr, one such convert and the Secretary General of Egypt’s Hizb-ut-Tahreer (Liberation Party) – one of many grassroots political parties that have sprung up since the revolution – says he had his passport confiscated by the Mubarak regime because of his activism.
“The Egyptian constitution will never accept a Shia party,” he says, “the media misrepresent us.”
The “politicisation” of the Sunni-Shia divide through the proxies of Iran and Saudi Arabia is widespread in Egyptian society, Jabr claims, when in reality the vast majority of Egyptian Shia have no personal or political ties to the Islamic Republic. And indeed, when I approached the president of Cairo’s Al Hussein mosque – where more than 200 Shia were forcibly prevented from celebrating Ashura in December 2011 – his viewpoint is surprisingly succinct:
“If they want to practice their rituals, then they should go back to their own country,” he states, ignoring the fact that most Egyptian Shias are exactly that: Egyptian.
And yet Egypt remains a country with strong Shia ties. The Fatimid dynasty, who ruled Egypt from AD 969 - 1171 and founded the city of Cairo, were exclusively Shia. It wasn’t until after the fall of the Fatimids that Egyptians began to convert to the Sunna, and the cultural legacy of Ahl al-Beit (descendants of the Prophet Muhammed, literally ‘people of the house’) remains strong even today. No further testament needs to be made to the strength of Egyptians reverence for the Ahl al-Beit than the abundance of shrines and mosques dedicated to Hussein, Hasan, Zainab, Ali, and other Shia imams.
But there are concerns among the Shias I spoke to that the rise of Islamist movements in Egypt since the fall of Mubarak, especially the omnipresence of the Muslim Brotherhood, will result in even fewer rights for their community.
Shias might not face the same extent of persecution as the more visible Coptic minority, but it was evident from the people I spoke to that they are equally not tolerated by the more extreme factions in Egyptian society.
“We cannot have Shias in our mosque because of their extremist views,” said the head of Alexandria’s Al-Fattah mosque, a stronghold for fundamentalist Salafis.
When asked if he would support the construction of a Shia mosque to allow Shias to pray in their own space, he looks at me wide-eyed, as if surprised by the question.
“No.”
It is a little word, but it says so much about the current state of Egypt, and about the country’s forgotten minority.
Additional reporting by Farah Souames.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















68 comments
No problem about shias and sunnis killing each other.
NO ONE CARES....I personally hope they both win. Juet give them bullets and let them do the rest.
We care about the Copts, who really suffer from both lothesome groups, sunni and shia.
"And yet Egypt remains a country with strong Shia ties. The Fatimid dynasty, who ruled Egypt from AD 969 - 1171 and founded the city of Cairo, were exclusively Shia. It wasn’t until after....."
When the writer expresses things this way, she makes it seem as though the Shia might need some historical excuse just to be treated decently. I think this is entirely the wrong way to go about this sort of thing. All religious sects, including the majority, need to be treated equally and decently by the government in every nation, as long as they are not engaging in any criminal activity. It is time that medieval ignorami in every country, including the U.S., for that matter, have that drummed into their children's heads (and their own, if it will do any good), and certainly important that the constitutions of the new democracies of the Arab world make this a central and non-changeable principle.
Dam with Islam, Shyia, Sunni or anything else. Apart from, refugees, terrorism, wars, oil, illegal immigration what Muslims produce to the world? Every modern thing Muslims have comes from non-Muslims; and how Muslims repay? with hate, deception and violence.
as Betty said I didnt even know that any body able to earn $9723 in four weeks on the computer. did you read this web page HTTP://LAZYCASH24.COM
The above message is Spam! Please delete it.
You do apparently have a spam filter, because it blocked my first attempt to report this :-)
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." - Winston Churchill
and? just proves what a hypochritical ignorant ars8h8le Churchill was at times. as far as meaningful and insightful analysis of Islam goes that surely ranks alongside current EDL propaganda.
but no doubt you personally find it most informative, and sufficient to nourish and embolden your bigotry.
.......In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Islam is the problem...........
How amusing your sputtering indignation and your pathetic resort to insult.
These shia are being treated exactly as they would treat a sunni in a shia society.
John Quincy Adams on Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
(Capitals are in the original )
Anybody who doesn't endorse the fascist and racist tenets of Islamism is according to the Madrassa-educated Islamist fanatic jackass - a bigot! Unless we positively endorse Moslem Jew-hatred, Moslem hostility to Christians, Gays and women - we are bigots!
You're shouting like the kinds of US right-wingers who, if there isn't a Muslim around to attack, will generally attack gays and feminists.
you are so dumb it is amusing, yet so repetitive it is boring. you are an amusing bore Trolldirge.
Anybody who doesn't endorse the fascist and racist tenets of Islamism is according to the Madrassa-educated Islamist fanatic jackass - a bigot! Unless we positively endorse Moslem Jew-hatred, Moslem hostility to Christians, Gays and women - we are bigots!
My "bigotry" needs no nourishment or encouragement. If "bigotry" means an unwillingness to see one's ancestral homeland over run by a bunch of child genital mutilating, tube blowing up, under age white girl pimping, honour killing, sister marrying,crazed followers of a paedophile slave trader mass murderer, then, yup, I plead guilty to bigotry. WAKE UP. We are gonna have to burn down every mosque in Europe, and that's all there is to it.
you need an actual dictionary rather than just being a dic, and look up the definition of bigotry.
the you wil realise your whole list merely evidences the fact that you are an odious little bigot.
i am also pleased to inform you of my own contribution to improving the genetics of 'your' country. i am a foreigner, married one of 'your' women, and have 2 children who so far put most of their 'pure' english peers to shame.
no need to thank me either DailyM.
'We are gonna have to burn down every mosque in Europe, and that's all there is to it'
Who is 'we' Daily Mail Reader? The BNP? Combat 18? And once you've finished with your orgy of burning , who will be your next scapegoat? Or do we already know whom that will be?
Your quote from Churchill was sensible but your next post was sheer trolling.
Well, perhaps you can enlighten us and inform us what exactly was wrong with Churchill's analysis? He is bang on the money.
what would be the point JJJ? you fail to see where you go wrong when you ascribe all the problems experienced by Muslims as a direct and inevitable result purely of the Koran.
so it comes as no surprise that you agree with the racist Churchill when he let's rip on Muslims, so i should assume you also agree with how he viewed Jews as the world's biggest threat to civilisation? Churchill uses the same 'expertise' of a man of his time to presume the English were the superior race, it has almost nothing to do with reality. he was a politician in an age when sexism and racism were thought to be perfectly acceptable philosophies in polite society.
so you still agree 100% with Churchill?
LOL! Your ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving: 'Jews as the world's biggest threat to civilisation'...
Try telling that to Sir Martin Gilbert who happens to be Jewish, Churchill's biographer. Or to countless other Historians for that matter. But of course, you go on Far-Right neo-Nazi sites to get your views. And before you quote me that article from 1920 (I knew you would want to do this) let me remind you that it is not proven beyond doubt that Churchill was indeed the author. Probably not given his philosemitism.
Bu I'm not going to play your manipulative game any further. The topic was a comment about what Churchill said about Islam from his personal observations. Yes, he was a creature of his times, of that there is no doubt. But as we see the evil of Islamism whose world view is eliminationist towards anyone that does not follow their creed, then we see the parallel with Winston Churchill's war against Nazism.
oh deary dreary me, i answer a question, and you fail to do likewise. how rude, how uncivilised.
you also remain incapable of appreciating that Churchill could both view Jews as "the world's biggest threat to civilisation" whilst at the same time desire them to have their own homeland. these are not irreconcilable positions, unless you are a simpleton of course.
"Bu I'm not going to play your manipulative game any further."
because you are a paranoid coward.
"The topic was a comment about what Churchill said about Islam from his personal observations."
well halle-fcuking-lujah JJJ. indeed it is the opinion of a single person. so i'll ask you again; do you equally agree with Churchill's personal opinion of Jews and Bolshevism/Communism?
p.s."(I knew you would want to do this)" and i knew that you knew you muppet. that single article changes nothing regarding Churchill's view of the Jewish instrumental role in Bolshevism. there are many other occasions when Churchill made his views clear on this subject. do keep up dear....
Again with the 'deary deary dreary me Shtick? Why so camp always and what does your wife think about that? And thanks again for the insults. Makes a change from 'vermin' and 'scum'.
"Why so camp always and what does your wife think about that? "
lovely bit of latent homophobia JJJ, what's wrong with a bit of 'camp', feel threatened do we, bit insecure about one's sexuality...? tut tut.
i see that again i answer your questions yet you ignore mine. plus ca change etc n'est ce pas? oops, sorry, i forgot you're a monoglot and feel threatened by foreigners like me.
tot ziens eikel, ik hoop dat je eindelijk iets geleerd hebt want ik wordt wel ontzettend moe van jouw gezanik.
Calm down dear. Pointing out 'camp' in good humour does not equate to Homophobia. In any case, your calling me what you called me is so way of the chart that you should consider yourself lucky that I even debate with you.
I noticed actually that you didn't answer the original point of what Churchill wrote.
ah, i see JJJ. so you were not being homophobic when you said i was being camp and that my wife may like to know about it? yeah rrrright.....
and you think i didn't answer? like hell i didn't soft lad. i wrote this to explain my accusation of Churchill vis a vis Islam/Muslims;
"Churchill uses the same 'expertise' of a man of his time to presume the English were the superior race, it has almost nothing to do with reality. he was a politician in an age when sexism and racism were thought to be perfectly acceptable philosophies in polite society."
that is correctly called an answer to the question why Churchill's thoughts on Islam and it's followers were deeply and fatally flawed. to quote them in 2012 as some sort of evidence is idiotic.
now, over to you dear...
OK, Two omissions from you: 1. Thankfully you haven't repeated your canard about Churchill being antisemitic; 2. You failed to remark on my OTHER comment to the OP where I actually criticize him/her and call him/her out.
This omission (2) is one of your tactics. It is analoguous to our discussion at the start of the year on one of the Israel threads where in response to your questions I quite clearly proved that my beliefs were not of a swivel eyed Israeli Nationalist. Yet, you somehow conveniently (for you) ignored my posts and continued asking me for my views. This proved to me that you are a propagandist and that your strategy was to ignore moderate comments as if they hadn't been said. That's when I said to you: 'Jankaas, someone gives you a hand you want the whole arm'. You and your pals Sir Michael, Mariella etc. were/ are maximalists but you ignored a pro-Israeli being moderate.
Now, back to the issue at hand, dear: I stand by what I say.
good grief..... rather than get on with it, you weave some or other fable from god knows when. you do bore the crap out of me JJJ. become interesting at once or shove off.
and i stand by my statements about Churchill, for the record i never called him "antisemitic". you are a liar by claiming i did. but then this is how you operate.
Klootz.
nope, that is not interesting. you're too boring, so we're done.
a full stop sums up your worth. like so;
.
When you stop trolling on every single thread here: Then we are done. Not beforehand.
Klootzak.
.
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistic jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by jews, and in some notable cases by jewesses.
The same evil prominence was obtained by jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-jews every whit as bad as the worst of the jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing".
Another well know quote from Big Winnie from 1920 that appeared in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on February 8, 1920. Might be best for EDL fascists to steer clear of Winston Churchill quotes and stil to someone less controversial like Enoch Powell for example.
The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and has contributed nothing to enlightenment. The Egyptian have democratically elected the Muslim brotherhood (note no sisterhood). Let's see if they can democratically un-elect them when the medieval repression starts?
ok TheWest, let's have a critical look at your list of Islamic woes;
"represses women"; as do a mass of Christian faiths, other religions, other cultures, and if the Vagenda is to be believed all women in the UK.
"spawns terrorism"; there are countless terrorist groups with non-Islamic ideologies - Jewish, Black South African, Bhuddist, German, Moluccan, Surinam, as well as state sponsored terror.
"prone to war"; see every human culture ever, the biggest killer being the USA.
"resists democracy"; see Soviet Union, China etc etc
"has contributed nothing to enlightenment."; is a flat out lie. if it wasn't for Islamic scholars many Greek texts would not have survived. we owe much in the field of mathematic to Muslims as well as a vast raft of science to Islamic scientists (though the term science is less than 200 years old). so do stop being ignorant of the value of ancient Islamic contribution. go learn some history so you stop looking so foolish.
but this point is interesting; "Let's see if they can democratically un-elect them.."
indeed, that is the whole point of democratic elections. but what will you think if these funny foreigners actually keep voting for an administration that is at odds with Western values? will you accept that they elected something you despise, and that you therefor need to respect their choice?
It is true that no civilization exists in a vacuum. Modern Western civilization owes much to Egyptians, Persians, Sumerians, Byzantines, Assyrians, Jews, Indians and Chinese. We owe little, if anything to Islam. When the Arab Muslims, a collection of backward, nomadic warrior tribes who did not even have a fully developed script, conquered Egypt, Syria and Iran, they took control over some of the world’s largest centres of accumulated knowledge. To say that “Muslims” or “Islamic culture” created the civilizations of the Middle East can be compared to an illiterate person storming into the planet’s largest library, killing all the librarians and then claiming to have written all the books there. The cultural superiority of the Middle East in relations to Europe did not begin with Islam’s entry into the area. In fact, it ended with it. One of the great riddles of history is how this once-dynamic region could become the world’s number one trouble spot. It so happens that this decline coincides with the region’s Islamization, although some would claim that it had already started before this. Islam’s much-vaunted “Golden Age” was in reality just the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed.
This dynamic region became a trouble spot when huge petroleum deposits were found in this region.
Industrialized countries need it and make sure the region is kept destabilized.
Please read the timeline of European history and history of the Muslim lands.
"We owe little, if anything to Islam."
this is not true. it is in fact absolute nonsense, and mreely illustrates the collective ignorance of many of us. but there is a cure; books, written by historians in this case.
as it happens there is a wonderful book i read recently called "Science A four thousand year history" by Patricia Fara. do get a copy, it even has your full username on page 51. it's true!
just before that the author write;
"....Islamic interpreters played crucial roles in interpreting, modifying, and developing Greek expertise that reached Europe in the twelfth century.
Far from being merely neutral transmitters of abstract concepts, Muslim leaders encouraged science by building massive libraries, hospitals, and astronomical observatories."
the rest of the chapter then evidences and builds on this outline. your library metaphor is just fantasy, the chronology of how scientific knowledge was increased puts paid to that. these Muslim scholars/scientists saw it as their Islamic duty to learn about reality in order to be closer to God (sound familiar?).
so, do you appreciate just how wrong you are TheWest? not your fault, but you should cease making claims that are demonstrably untrue.
It's not...
you are a total waste of time and effort. i'm done with you. stay as ignorant as you wish.
Wake-up from your're medieval enslavement and embrace modernity.
ffs, so you think i am a Muslim....?
i am a secular Dutchman, a non-theist no less.
and unlike you i don't deny history and inconvenient facts as you do. like i said, i tried to have an adult conversation with you, and you are not up to it. go back to sleep.
Do stop peddling this 'I'm a secular Dutchman' horsesiht, everyone knows you are an Islamist Madrassa-reared fanatic from apartheid Pakistan.
well guess who pops up out of no-where; Fredprick!
as i've told you previously, think what you like and imagine whatever you wish about me. why not go the whole hog and pretend i am Osama Bin Laden himself? but enough of you, here's what i think of you, and i'll circumvent the filters by writing in Dutch (which you can imagine is Pakistani!!)
jij hebt een enorm groot probleem Fredprick namelijk, zoals meestal het geval is met jou soort weiger jij te luisteren. je hoofd zit al zo boordevol met stront en haat, het ontbreekt totaal aan begrip voor je medemens. ieder die niet precies zoals jij is moet per definitie vijand zijn. dit gebeurt meestal met mannen die te vaak in hun reed zijn geneukt door een Oom of kennis, en enkel dit kunnen verwerken door laf en vel tekeer te gaan tegen een zwakker doel. mijn geduld en sympathie ben jij niet waard, totaal verkwist aan een klootzak zoals jij. ik wens jou het aller slechtste vette rukker.
You can understand why even the Dutch prefer speaking English.
and so the monoglot stamps his little feet...
just for you; rot op lul.
Get back to your weed you stupid Haliwr; just for you Ti'n llawn cachu.
how cute, still having a tantrum. back at ya i guess; Dos i chwarae efo dy nain
Ti'n llawn cachu.
you'd already used that one. face it, you're not up to this abuse lark so do give it a rest.
A secular Dutchman and a non-theist no less, should know better and should stop trying to defend the indefensible.
you're the history denier, so do get a grip. just because you hate/fear Islam doesn't allow you to rewrite history. it's as pathetic as Creationists who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old.