City of Brass

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, Shi'a cleric executed in Saudi Arabia

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, Shi’a cleric executed in Saudi Arabia

Yesterday, the Saudi government executed the Shi’a cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, as an enemy of the state. His nephew, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr (who was 17 when arrested), is in prison and sentenced to death by crucifixion, though there is still time for diplomacy to intervene.

Naturally, Shi’a worldwide were enraged, and the Iranian government did its part to fan the flames of outrage, including burning down the Saudi embassy in Tehran. I personally am skeptical that this is the straw that breaks the back of the House of Saud, but we will see. Nimr is being used as a geopolitical pawn between Iran and Saudi Arabia sectarian rivalry:

Nimr’s case also became a cause celebre across the Shia world, framed in geopolitical as well as humanitarian terms. His fate was linked to the broader, region-wide struggle for power and influence between the Sunni sphere, championed by the House of Saud, on the one hand, and the theocrats of Iran, the most powerful majority Shia state, on the other. Iran repeatedly demanded Nimr’s release, warning Riyadh in October, when his death sentence was confirmed, that executing him would place a “heavy price on Saudi Arabia”.

Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei made the point clear – tweeting in support of Nimr:

This is a deeply ironic (ie, hypocritical) tweet considering that Khamanei was not so supportive of “Awakenings” during the Green Revolution six years ago.

Iran is also an unlikely champion for the rights of religious minorities, given their oppression of the Baha’i. (See for more).

The transmogrification of Nimr into a sectarian/geopolitical football was inevitable. But the real question is, who was Nimr al-Nimr? What did he really believe in and advocate? Almost no one with an opinion about him today on Twitter or Facebook has any real idea.

The answer is not to be found on mainstream news or social media. As it happens, there is a CIA telegram cable (08RIYADH1283_a) detailing an interview of Nimr in 2008 by intelligence and diplomatic personnel. This cable is now public domain thanks to Wikileaks, and contains a detailed background on Nimr, the results of the interview, and analysis. The entire cable is absolutely a must-read, but I will excerpt two sections: the executive summary, and final commentary.

1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: In an August 13 meeting with PolOff,
controversial Shi’a sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr sought to
distance himself from previously reported pro-Iranian and
anti-American statements, instead adopting a less radical
tone on topics such as the relationship between Iran and the
Saudi Shi’a, and American foreign policy. Arguing that he is
portrayed publicly as much more radical than the true content
of his words and beliefs, the Sheikh also espoused other
conciliatory ideas such as fair political decision-making
over identity-based politics, the positive impact of
elections, and strong “American ideals” such as liberty and
justice. Despite this more moderate tone, Al-Nimr reasserted
his ardent opposition to what he described as the
authoritarianism of the reactionary al-Saud regime, stating
he would always support “the people” in any conflict with the
government. He also continued to argue for the right of the
Saudi Shi’a community to seek external assistance if it were
to become embroiled in a conflict. The Sheikh was also
cognizant of the increased profile that his strong language
has earned him, saying that his fiery words continue to
attract interest from an increasing percentage of the Shi’a
community, particularly young people. END SUMMARY.

Intermediate sections:

Background on al-Nimr (Sections 2, 3)
Al-Nimr on his Loyalties (Section 4)
Al-Nimr on Iran, the United States (Sections 5-8)
Al-Nimr on the Saudi Arabian Government (SAG) (Sections 9-12)

Then, the final commentary:

13. (S/NF) Al-Nimr’s private remarks were consistent with his
previous public statements in their disregard for the SAG,
their support of foreign intervention on behalf of the Saudi
Shi’a, and their inferences that the Sheikh at the very least
will not denounce the idea of violent uprising. On the
sensitive topic of Iran, however, the Sheikh eagerly
attempted to divorce himself from the image of being an
Iranian agent. Likewise, the Sheikh was much more
complimentary of the U.S. – perhaps even somewhat disarming
in his recounting of U.S. foreign policy in World War II, the
Cold War, and the Carter administration – than he has been
previously portrayed. Though it is certainly possible that
al-Nimr changed his tune on these issues for the company of a
U.S. diplomat, the pace, passion and certainty with which he
spoke seemed to reflect true belief, and not cold political
calculation or manipulation. In any case, his ideas seem to
be internally contradictory. While it might be possible at a
theoretical level to distance himself from Iran while also
arguing the right of Saudi Shi’a to seek foreign assistance,
at the de facto level Iran is certainly the only country at
this time that might work with the Saudi Shi’a to undermine
SAG control – a future Shi’a Iraq being the only other actor
of any possibility. It is perhaps this reality that leads
some local analysts to believe that al-Nimr would not
hesitate to join Iranian agents in a possible uprising.

14. (S/NF) Also notable for the purpose of predicting
al-Nimr’s future behavior was his recognition of his own
growing popularity, an observation supported by many in the
community. Post contacts have described al-Nimr as someone
who in previous years was largely an apolitical religious
figure, and is still a secondary player in local politics.
These contacts point to the death of Ayatollah Shirazi as the
moment when al-Nimr began to take more political stances, his
politicization a product of desire for greater community
influence. Assuming al-Nimr’s primary goals are greater
rights for Shi’a and greater personal influence, it would
seem his plan will be to continue forcefully calling for
reform and creating unrest, endearing him to the disaffected,
and fitting with his vision of instability as being the only
catalyst for real change in the Kingdom.

There is a real risk that Nimr’s execution will exacerbate sectarian tension. Therefore I think that it is vital that people have at least a general understanding of what Nimr himself believed, rather than allow him to be defined by either Saudi Arabia, or Iran.



It’s fundamentally problematic for a man to weigh in on hijab. That hasn’t stopped me from wading into the topic before (see: The Burka and the Bikini), but the only conversation of substance that can happen on the topic is between Muslim women, particularly those who wear it and those who don’t. Any discussion about hijab where a male is doing the talking is probably a waste of your time, my efforts included.

In the past 24 hours, however, a genuine debate about hijab, between Muslim women, has indeed arisen. It started when a woman professor at an Evangelical Christian university donned hijab in solidarity with Muslim women, and got fired (though not technically for wearing hijab, but rather expressing the Catholic view that Allah and God are one, which contradicts the Protestant view). There’s a whole spontaneous movement of non-Muslim women wearing hijab, in fact, which sparked its own tangential debate about the tension between American feminism and hijab. (Essential reading: the dangers of modesty-shaming by Nadiah Mohajir).

Muslim women who wear hijab are, by virtue of the iconic headscarf, on the frontline when it comes to Islamophobia, which is at an all-time high due to the Presidential election. Muslim women who choose not to wear the hijab are not identifiably Muslim and thus they do not experience Islamophobia the same way that hijab-wearers do. This is why the act of solidarity of wearing hijab is so powerful.

Enter Asra Nomani, who decided the real issue is not Islamophobia, but an “Honor Brigade” who force Muslim women to wear hijab. Nomani falls squarely into the “Islamic feminism is an oxymoron” category of thought, and the movement of hijab solidarity offended her enough to provoke her to op-ed in the Washington Post: “As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the ‘hijab’ in the name of interfaith solidarity”.

Dilshad Ali, editor of the Muslim Portal at Patheos, and an absolutely badass feminist who puts Furiosa and Rey to shame, wrote a response to Nomani, entitled “Please Do (If You Want) Wear the Headscarf in the Name of Interfaith Solidarity”

I think that the best thing men can do here is to sit down, look pretty, and shut up. Actually, there is one way in which I can contribute meaningfully – Let’s get some data! I am running two polls on Twitter, which will expire in 24 hours. You can vote in the appropriate poll below. It should go without saying, but please do not vote in this poll if you are male, or if you are a non-Muslim. Obviously this isn’t a scientific poll but it does at least ground the debate in some empiricism.

Step 1: read the two essays

  • Asra: As Muslim women, we actually ask you not to wear the ‘hijab’ in the name of interfaith solidarity
  • Dilshad: Please Do (If You Want) Wear the Headscarf in the Name of Interfaith Solidarity
  • Step 2: vote in this poll if you are a Muslim woman who wears hijab:

    Step 3: vote in this poll if you are a Muslim woman who does not wear hijab:

    … step 4, thank Donald Trump for being the prime mover in triggering this debate.

    UPDATE: Haroon Moghul has a landmark series of tweets that take Asra Nomani to task for trying to change the subject. It’s worth emphasising that Haroon is not commenting on the hijab – he is commenting on the call for “reform” by Asra.


    This is a popular graphic that makes the ruonds on Facebook from time to time, so I thought I’d publish it here for reference. These five verses are among the most common ones that Islamophobes use to justify arguments that Muslims are evil robots running some operating system “Quran 1400”.

    The specific verses here are:

    2:191 – “kill them where you find them”
    9:5 – “slay the pagans”
    8:60 – “strike terror”
    47:4 – “smite necks”
    9:29 – “pay jizya”

    misquote quran

    It’s also worth noting that the Qur’an is hardly alone in having stark imagery that is easily misrepresented. This video was also making the rounds on social media – reading Bible verses to people, but telling them it’s actually the Qur’an:

    Anyone with passing familiarity with the Bible can probably construct a graphic similar to above that explains these “problematic” verses, too.



    It needs to be said – that Trump is a symptom, not a disease. There has been a GOP War on Muslims for years, and despite heroic efforts by Republican Muslim Americans to sway opinion, the bottom line is that Muslim hatred is a prerequisite for the GOP nomination.

    Just as incendiary rhetoric by radical Imams in mosques can have direct consequences, or virulent pro-life extremism by right-wing talk show hosts, so too does mainstreamed Islamophobia. The radicalization of Republicans about Islam can be quantified:

    A February poll showed that 54 percent of Republican respondents believe that Obama “deep down” is best described as Muslim. By September, an Iowa poll found that only 49 percent of Republicans there believed that Islam should be legal, with 30 percent saying it should be illegal and 21 percent “unsure.” Among Trump supporters in Iowa, hostility toward Muslims was higher but not that much higher: 36 percent said Islam should be outlawed. A November nationwide poll found that 56 percent of Americans see Islam as at odds with American values. Fifty-seven percent of Americans, and 83 percent of Republicans, say that Muslims should be barred from the presidency.

    Why is the GOP establishment panicking about Trump? It’s not because Trump is poisoning the GOP message by importing hate. It’s because Trump is tearing back the curtain on the hate that is already there. And everyone running for the GOP nomination knows it, and panders to it. They just don’t have the stones that Trump does to court it openly.

    “The fact is we need appropriate vetting, and I don’t think orphans under five should be admitted into the United States at this point.” — Chris Christie, regarding Syrian refugees

    “Where is there widespread evidence that we have a problem in America with discrimination against Muslims?” — Marco Rubio, denying Islamophobia exists

    “I mean, you can prove you’re a Christian. You can’t prove it, then you know, you err on the side of caution.” — Jeb Bush, on religious testing of Syrian refugees

    “If there’s a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog.” — Ben Carson, about admitting Syrian refugees

    “We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.” — Ted Cruz, on how he would defeat ISIS

    “I don’t think we’re being careful enough with who we let in.” — Rand Paul, on immigration from Muslim countries to the US

    Previous Posts