This headline screamed out at me this morning:
Kuwait deplores ‘terror’ eulogy
My first instinct was to wonder whether this was another example of some moderation in the Arab world (especially after reading this report yesterday). But then I read on.
Kuwaiti officials have criticised Shia Muslims in the emirate who eulogised Lebanese militant Imad Mughniyeh who died in a car bomb in Syria last week.
Hundreds of members of Kuwait’s Shia minority gathered on Saturday to hail Mughniyeh as a martyr and hero.
The cabinet branded the late Hezbollah commander “a terrorist whose hands have been stained with martyrs’ blood”.
Kuwait, a key US ally, accuses him of hijacking a Kuwaiti jet in 1988 in which two Kuwaiti nationals died.
The Cabinet said the Shia eulogy “provoked” Kuwaitis and said the government has taken “legal measures that would safeguard national unity”.
A Shia MP was quoted telling mourners that there had been no evidence against Mughniyeh for the 1988 hijacking.
Hezbollah’s membership is mainly made up of Lebanese Shia Muslim. Its activities, including the 2006 war with Israel, have been condemned by staunchly Sunni Muslim regimes in the Gulf.
Hezbollah’s Manar TV reported there was a similar show of support among people in Bahrain, where Shia Muslims make up a majority of the native population.
In other words, Kuwaiti officials criticised Shia Muslims who eulogised Lebanese terrorist Imad Mughniyeh since:
- They are Sunni.
- They held him responsible for the killing of some Kuwaiti nationals
So for me, the real question is: would these Kuwaiti officials have reacted the same way had Mughniyeh been Sunni, and he had killed Americans and Israelis only?
