Clip from video showing the bomb

Having been busy with teaching, PhD work, and other commitments, I have not had much time to blog. However, given the impending third anniversary of the Bahrain Revolution on February 14th , I thought it best to put something together. The most striking thing I discovered this morning was this rather dramatic video depicting youth in Balaclavas making preparations for the upcoming civil disobedience named ‘Qadimuun’ (literally ‘Coming’). It was released by the ‘Media Center of the Revolution in Bahrain‘.

Despite the snazzy production values, which have come along way since 2011 (A fact true of all the online media channels belonging to the various village and revolutionary groups in Bahrain), the video contains images that will certainly alarm many people. The religious imagery (footage of the Qoran and a man praying) juxtaposed with footage of people making a bomb (jump to 2.27) represent a marked change from the protests we witnessed back in 2011. Indeed, in 2011 there seemed to be more of a unified effort by most factions to emphasise peaceful resistance with perhaps less recourse to religious imagery. The bomb here, while unsophisticated, appears to be an improvised explosive device triggered by a mobile phone.

The footage (0.12) of the Qoran is also significant, as it shows Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), which was written after the Battle of Badr – in which the Muslim army under Muhammed fought with the Quraish tribe of Mecca. (Somewhat ironically, Saddam Hussein named his campaign against the Kurds ‘Al-Anfal’). Digressions aside, the Surah can be interpreted as justifying battle against  those who are the enemies of Allah, which in this case is undoubtedly the apostate Al Khalifa regime and their Saudi Arabian (Quraishi?) backers. Ayat 60 reads (go to 0.12 on video or click this link to read it directly);

أَعِدُّوا لَهُمْ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ قُوَّةٍ وَمِنْ رِبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِنْ دُونِهِمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللَّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ ۚ وَمَا تُنْفِقُوا مِنْ شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تُظْلَمُونَ

Muster against them all the military strength and cavalry that you can afford so that you may strike terror into the hearts of the enemy of Allah and of your, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah. Remember that whatever you will spend in the cause of Allah, shall be paid back to you in full and you shall not be treated unjustly.*

While the Surah justifies battle against the enemies of Allah, it is still unclear which elements of Bahrain’s unlicensed opposition endorse the use of violence. The bomb-making video appears to be endorsed by a number of Bahrain’s unlicensed opposition parties. This includes the Alliance for a Republic (i.e. the Bahrain Freedom Movement, Al-Haq Movement, and Al-Wafa Islamic Party), the Youth Coalition of the February 14th, the Salvation Movement, and the Islamic Action Society (Amal). I say ‘appears’ because the video contains all of these parties’ banners at the end, implying some sort of link.  Although the Youth Coalition of the February 14th Movement have endorsed the use of violence in self defense and not against civilians, it is unclear where the other parties stand. (I asked them earlier today and am waiting for a response from all these groups to see whether they endorse the use of bombs).

While the stance of all these ‘unlicensed’ opposition societies is not quite clear with regards to violence, they obviously co-ordinate on other forms of civil disobedience. In a snub to Bahrain’s largest opposition political coalition (which includes Al-Wefaq and Wa’ad ), the unlicensed coalition recently issued a joint statement are calling for actions on the 14th February. Al-Wefaq and its coalition partners, on the other hand, have opted to have a number of events leading up to February 14th and a large demonstration on the 15th February. No doubt their decision to avoid causing a scene on the 14th is the result of a government pressure and/or appeasement strategy. (let’s not forget that two key Al Wefaq figures were arrested late last year – Ali Salman and Khalil Marzook). Either way, Al-Wefaq more conciliatory stance is unlikely to be viewed favorably by those groups espousing more violent means, and is likely to drive a further wedge between the licensed and unlicensed opposition. It certainly emphasizes the differences between Bahrain’s opposition, and shows that Al-Wefaq are not necessarily the terrorist enemy that some hardliners in the Bahrain government would like many to believe.

Either way, February 14th is set to be interesting. While it will most likely fail to generate any significant political impact, there could be a casualty or two. That’s not to say there has been a wholesale shift in tactics. Far from it, the traditional tactics of roadblocks, marches and blackouts will also be used (see this video of revolutionaries handing out pamphlets in at least three different languages asking for people to close their shops over the next few days). Despite the use of more peaceful forms of civil disobedience, this video is so far the most brazen and audacious endorsement of violence by the Youth Coalition of the February 14th Movement (or whoever made it). Whether it represents even more broader support for religiously justified violence among Bahrain’s unlicensed opposition remains to be seen.  However, this very open show of violence highlights how government attempts to divide the opposition movement and promote disunity amongst opposition groups has succeeded.

*Also, although the religious rhetoric may worry secularists, there is nothing implicitly sectarian about the text.


5 thoughts on “Are Bahrain’s Unlicensed Opposition Calling for Violence this February 14th?

  1. Actually Fred, they did succeed in Northern Ireland: the IRA are now in government, have had their terrorist prisoners released and their reforms implemented (ie the eradication of the RUC) and are moving away from Britain step by step (they already have a devolved assembly at Stormont; see the recent removal of Union Flags from govt buildings as just one example). Ultimate goal of unified Ireland would seem a matter of time (unless the Irish economy fails to recover, in which case de facto independence while still receiving handouts from London).

    As for Bahrain, I expect the usual scuffles and hot air without any significant change.

  2. You write: “Digressions aside, the Surah can be interpreted as justifying battle against those who are the enemies of Allah, which in this case is undoubtedly the apostate Al Khalifa regime and their Saudi Arabian (Quraishi?) backers.” Digression aside you digress again and contradict yourself once again.
    The sentence before you refer to Muhammad without saying Prophet Muhammad, which is fine if you are a disbeliever or seek to offend Muslims. You don’t even have to be polite and say “the Muslim prophet Muhammad” either.
    But, if you are going to speak in the name of God, referring to “the enemies of Allah” while quoting the Quran and Word of God, then consider this: What qualifies you to call the Al Khalifa an “apostate regime and their Saudi Arabian (Quraishi?) backers”?
    You evidently harbor immoderate views and as in the evaluation of Bin Ashour’s article you fail to make a convincing argument while using inflammatory rhetoric in a snide, snarky, passive-aggressive manner.
    At the same time you are one with extremist groups, referring to the Saudi and the Al Khalifa regimes apostates. What is the religious basis for you to call these entities “apostates”?
    That sounds like something coming from the spokesperson for Al Shabaab. If you call a person or entity a kafir then you are a takfiri and you are intimating that they are worthy of being slain. This is where your thinking goes taken to its logical extent.
    It serves you as a scholar and academic to adhere to higher standards.

    1. Several things

      1) Many Muslims are not offended if you do not say ‘Prophet’ before Muhammed. Some might be offended you did not put PBUH after you write Muhammed. (Don’t worry – I’m not offended).
      2) I am not calling those regimes apostate necessarily, but I am arguing that in order to invoke that Surah, these activists perceive those regimes as enemies of Islam
      3) I am not speaking ‘in the name of God’. I’m not sure what gave you that idea.
      4) The purpose of my post on Sarah Bin Ashoor’s piece was satire. I did actually include a few legitimate criticisms of the piece, maybe you did not read them? Also, Justing Gengler wrote a good critique and I did not see the need to paraphrase.
      5) The logic in your argument where you deduce that I hold immoderate views because of my failure to make a convincing argument about Bin Ashoor’s piece if flawed. Leaving aside that I did include some critiques, how does my perceived failure to critique her piece in your eyes mean that I hold immoderate views? This is a logical fallacy.
      6) Regarding the argument about apostasy, this was based on a discourse analysis I did back in 2009. Maybe you’d like to read

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s